SR-9-B (47)
.
"I _ ~
1 -y'- ,,/- / Y"." 1\4
\
\
NOV 1 9 1991'
LUTM:SF:PF/maincc2.word.ppd
COUNCIL MEETING: November 19, 1991 Santa Monica, california"~
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation To Conduct A Public Hearing On The Main
Street Master Plan And Proposed Ordinance Revisions, TO
Adop~ The Main street Master Plan And Direct The city
Attorney To prepare proposed Revisions To The Zoning
Ordinance
INTRODUCTION
This report provides a description ot the proposed Main Street
Plan, the Planning commission recommendations, responses to
Council concerns expressed at the October 15 meeting, and staff
recommendations to proceed with the implementation of the
proposed plan.
BACKGROUND
In June 1980, a Main street Master Plan was adopted to address
the issue ot commercial development along Main Street. The Plan,
developed as a result of a comprehensive community process,
consisted of proposed ordinance provisions and recommended policy
for Main street (Exhibit B). As a result of the Plan, the CM
Zoning District was established.
In 1988, the Planning Commission denied a request to locate a
fifth restaurant in the 2500 block of Main street based on the
fact that the Main street Ordinance only allowed four restaurants
(which were in existence) to be located between Ocean Park and
- 1 - 9-.L3
NOV 1 9 1991
~
....
t.
....#.. -
~~ . '
Holliste~ Avenue. On appeal to City council, the Council
directed staff to meet with appropriate groups to discuss
amending the Main street Ordinance to permit a fifth restaurant.
Planning staff met wi th representatives from the Main street
Merchants and Owners Association, opeo and the NSC to discuss the
issue of amending the Ordinance, however the organizations could
not reach a consensus relating to a fifth restaurant on Main
street. Staff, therefore, presented three alternatives to the
Council for consideration:
1. Amend the Main street Ordinance to permit a fifth
restaurant and prohibit any other restaurants from
locating on Main street until a comprehensive review
of the standards could take place.
2. Defer amending the Main Street Ordinance until a
comprehensive review of the standards could take place.
3. Defer amending the Main street Ordinance until a
parking structure was built and until a comprehensive
review of the standards could take place.
Staff recommended the first option. It was apparent that the
standards contained in the existing ordinance did not adequately
address the concerns of surrounding res idents, merchants and
property owners on Main street. The provisions of the Main street
Ordinance were not evaluated as part of the overall revisions to
the zoning Ordinance in 1988 and had not been reviewed since
their adoption in 1980. City council concurred with the staff's
recommendation and directed staff to undertake a review of the
ordinance which included a pUblic process.
Staff determined that in order to conduct a complete review of
the Ordinance, it was necessary to utilize a similar process to
t · :
t--' "u 4~* - 2 -
.. ,.. .
I
,
that used in 1980 to develop the original Main street Plan.
Therefore, staff recommended that a Main street citizens Advisory
Committee be established to work with staff in developing changes
to the Plan and CM District ordinance.
Advisory Committee
The Main street Advisory Committee was established to formulate
revisions to the existing Main Street ordinance. Comprised of
seventeen members from the residential and business community of
Main street, this committee met twenty-eight times between
August, 1989 and November, 1990.
Although the Committee was charged with simply reviewing the Main
street Ordinance, it became clear that the issues raised went
-
beyond the existing ordinance. Therefore, the committee voted to
update the Main street Plan with proposed ordinance revisions.
The Committee reviewed the existing Main Street Plan and
Ordinance, and then developed their own set of recommendations.
To develop the new recommendations, the Committee members divided
into subcommittees to discuss such topics as land use,
development standards, aesthetics, enforcement, and circulation.
The subcommittees would present recommendations to all members of
the Committee who would then debate and vote on the preferred
alternatives.
All the issues discussed and debated were approved by a consensus
vote. Only one issue, the development standards for the CM4
District, did not receive a consensus vote and recommendation.
At the conclus1on of the process, a final vote was taken on the
- 3 -
.
I
plan. The vote was 15 to 2 in support of the Draft Main street
Plan and Ordinance Provisions.
Proposed Plan
The Plan consists of two components -- policy recommendations and
proposed Zoning Ordinance recommendations (Exhibit A). There are
seven chapters in the Plan as outlined "below:
Chapter I: Introduction. This section explains the area, the
1980 and 1989/90 planning process, the organization of the report
and the Advisory committee members.
Chapter II: statement of Intent. This section is taken from the
1980 Plan and has been revised to reflect existing conditions.
.
Chapter III: Proposed Zoning ordinance Revisions That Apply To
Main street. The Main street Advisory Committee reviewed the CM
District ordinance, Subchapter 4N of the Zoning Ordinance, and
recommended a number of revisions that would affect the Main
Street area. These changes dealt with land uses, development
standards, design standards, noise standards and definitions.
The changes encourage mixed use development with residential
uses, encourage neighborhood serving uses, and limit or prohibit
such uses as restaurants, bars, hotels and motels. Amendments to
the development standards are designed to ensure that new
development is in scale with the existing commercial character of
Main street. The strike out text in Exhibit A is text to be
deleted, the bold text is text to be added.
- 4 -
--- -- --- ---- - - - -- - --
,
,
Chapter IV. Proposed Ordinance Revisions That will Apply
Citywide. The Committee discussions centered on Main street;
however, there were some general issues the Committee felt should
be changed citywide. These changes, also noted in the text with
strike-out and bold formats in Exhibit A, involve non-conforming
historic buildings, zoning enforcement, project design and
development, variance procedures, architectural review board
procedures, and off-street parking requirements for restaurants.
The committee proposed language changes which dealt with the
replacement of and repair to non-conforming historic structures
in the event of a disaster. Zoning code enforcement changes were
also proposed which put more stringent controls on business
operations through license revocation, suspension procedures and
enforcement fees. The Advisory Committee has proposed changes to
the variance process when a structure of historic value is
relocated. Also proposed are posting requirements for
Architectural Review Board hearings. Finally, the Committee has
proposed changes to off-street parking requirements for
restaurants.
Chapter v. Proposed Policy Recommendations That Will Apply
Citywide. Not all the recommendations made by the committee
related to ordinance modifications. The Committee made
recommendations for policies which dealt with issues that were
unique to Main street but also developed policies that would
apply throughout the City. Those issues that would apply
Citywide include controlling loud music and loud patrons,
rezoning of residential property to commercial uses, parking,
- 5 -
.
.
conditions for conditional use permits for restaurants,
convenience store incentives and alcohol impacts. The Committee
recommended that commercial projects assume responsibility for
compliance w~th the City's Noise Ordinance and that a
self-monitoring program be initiated to control noise. The
controlling of loud patrons is a Police matter, but the Committee
has provided options to control those establishments.
Chapter VI. Proposed Policy Recommendations Unique To Main
street. This section contains recommended policies that the
committee would like to see established for Main street. The
policies are meant to protect the residential quality of the
adjacent neighborhoods while encouraging and supporting the
commercial district. These policies address parking, traffic
circulation, motion picture and television filming and the
establishment of a permanent on-going cOInmi ttee of residents,
property owners and business persons to monitor the Main street
planning process. The parking and traffic circulation changes
proposed include lower parking meter rates, implementation of
non-structural parking alternatives, preferential parking zones
on Second- and Third streets and circulation changes that promote
a more pedestrian-oriented atmosphere with slower traffic,
widened sidewalks, crosswalks and large vehicle restrictions on
Main street. The Committee has also proposed restrictions on
filming for television and motion pictures as it impacts traffic
circulation and parking.
Chapter VII. Aesthetics and Ambiance. The committee devoted a
significant amount of time to developing a future vision for Main
- 6 -
~---- - - -
I
street. The Advisory committee proposed short-term and long-term
goals for the unification of Main street and to create a
pedestrian village/neighborhood commercial district in the area.
The short-term objectives involve signage throughout the district
and the initiation of a design guidelines process. The long-term
objectives center on a possible historic designation, streetscape
improvements, parking and circulation, open space and permanent
design guidelines for the district.
Addendum 1: Issues Not Approved By A Consensus Vote. This
section outlines the one issue on which the Committee was unable
to reach a consensus, development standards for the CM4 District.
The four alternatives discussed by the Committee are presented
for Council review.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The planning Commission held pUblic hearings on the Main street
Plan on June 19, July 17 and July 31, 1991. speakers from the
residential and business communities as well as Advisory
Committee members testified before the Planning commission. Prior
to the final public hearing, staff provided extensive citywide
notification so that the Commission could gather additional
testimony on the plan provisions that would apply throughout the
City. After the public testimony on July 17, the Commission
continued the meeting to July 31 to discuss the document and
formulate recommendations to the City Council.
The Commission reviewed the document chapter by chapter and made
the following recommendations.
- 7 -
.
Chapter One: Introduction. No comments.
Chapter Two: statement of Intent No comments
Chapter Three: Proposed Zoninq Ordinance Revisions that Apply to
Main Street.
o Include the neighborhood serving uses listed on page 40 of
the document as permitted uses.
o Remove dance studios and exercise facilities from the
permitted uses and put in the conditional uses section.
o Retain the CM4 district at the southwest corner of pico
Boulevard and Main Street with height at 47'feet, 4 stories,
and a 2.5 FAR. The fourth story must contain residential uses
with one-third of the units affordable. The remaining CM4
district would be rezoned to CM3.
,
o Provide information to the City council on the Floor Area
Ratios (FAR) of buildings that have been built on Main street
since 1980 (Exhibit E) .
o change the period of abandonment for businesses on Main
street from one year to six months. This period of time is
consistent with the period of time throughout the rest of the
city.
chapter Four: Proposed Ordinance Revisions That Will Apply
Citywide.
o Remove the proposed restaurant parking requirements from
the Plan and conduct more detailed analysis as part of the
on-going Zoning Ordinance Clean-up process.
o The Planning Commission supported modifying the
enforcement provisions as proposed by the Committee. In
addition, the commission asked that staff agendize the issue
of enforcement for further commission d~scussion.
Chapter Five: Proposed policy Recommendations That Will Apply
Citywide.
o Remove the noise section since a more detailed analysis of
noise issues will be conducted as part of the revised Noise
Element and Noise Ordinance.
o Require periodic review of certain uses as part of the
Conditional Use Permit process.
o Remove the proposed Alcohol Impact Fee since this issue is
being evaluated on a citywide basis.
- 8 -
.
Chapter six: Proposed Policy Recommendations unique to Main
street.
0 Reroute the out-of-service buses from Main street, but
retain the in-service buses.
Chapter Seven: Aesthetics and Ambiance.
0 Do not permit sandwich board signs on main Street.
0 Retain two lanes of traffic in both directions on Main
Street.
0 Include the Community Gardens site as part of the process
to update the Open Space Element.
Analysis
Planning staff and the City Attorney's office reviewed the
recommendations of the Main street Advisory Committee and concur
with all the proposed recommendations with the exception of
restri.cting buses on Main street and Hill street, and the
implementation of a preferential parking zone with a two hour
daytime exemption.
The Santa Monica Transportation Department studied removal of Bus
Lines 1 and 10 from Main street and the relocation of Line 2 from
Hill street to Ocean Park Boulevard in 1988 and found that
approximately 2000 patrons daily utilize the lines, plus a
substantial number of additional patrons who use SCRTD service
along Main street. The study found no alternative route that
would accommodate a bus turning onto Neilson Way south of Ocean
Park Boulevard. Bus traffic along Neilson Way would increase
from 8 buses an hour to 34 buses an hour during peak hours. In
addition, Neilson/Pacific does not have a parking lane for bus
turnouts nor does it have sufficient room for left or right turn
pockets. Therefore, stopped buses would impede traffic, and
- 9 -
I
create problems. Additionally, a large percentage of the bus
patrons live east of Main street and south of Ocean Park
Boulevard and thus would be forced to walk even further to access
the bus. Staff does not support the Committee recommendation to
remove in-service buses from Main street, however, statf does
support removing out-ot-service buses and will work with RTD to
accomplish this goal.
According to the Main street Parking Demand Analysis (October
1987), modifying the existing preferential parking zone
restrictions (no parking wi thout permit from 6:00 p.m. to 2:00
a.m. ) to a 2 hour daytime limitation would displace 100 to 150
long term parkers. As identified in the criteria for approval of
a preferential parking zone, a preferential parking zone cannot
be established or amended if it would result in a significant
displacement of non-resident vehicles into adjacent residential
areas. staff believes that implementation of a 2 hour daytime
limitation would place 100 to 150 vehicles in the residential
area just east of the current preferential parking zones in Ocean
Park and therefore does not support the Committee's
recommendations.
The majority of the Planning Commission recommendations do not
alter the intent of the Plan, and staff supports all of the
recommended revisions with the exception of the prohibition of
"sandwich board" signs on Main street and the retention of two
lanes of traffic. The sign issue was discussed in detail by the
committee and the Committee felt these types of signs added to
the Itpedestrian friendly" nature of the street. However, staff
- 10 -
- - --- --
t
<
has some concerns regarding enforcement should this type of sign
be permitted only on Main Street. Staff is not objecting to the
concept of permitting "sandwich board" signs, but recommends that
this issue be looked at in the context of a Citywide amendment to
the sign ordinance and not solely for one commercial district.
Therefore, absent a change to the overall sign code, staff does
not recommend allowing II sandwich board" signs only on Main
street.
staff supports in concept the Committee's goal to encourage and
develop a pedestrian oriented, village-like atmosphere on Main
street. In order to make a determination as to the feasibility
of the Committee's recommended parking and traffic circulation
improvements, staff recommends that a full assessment and traffic
analysis be conducted prior to implementation of any
improvements. This analysis should take place in conjunction
with development of the Main Street Design Guidelines. In order
to accomplish this, the Council would need to authorize staff to
prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for consultant services for
the circulation analysis and design guidelines. Once a consultant
has been selected, staff will return to council with a request to
appropriate funds for the consultant services. As is noted
below, this would be part of next fiscal year's work program.
Economic Development Activities
As part of the city-wide economic development strategy, the
Economic Development Division is currently in the process of
developing a Community Reinvestment Plan (CRP). This plan 1.S
being developed under the federally mandated Community
- 11 -
-- ----- - -- - ---- -----
,
>
Reinvestment Act (eRA) and will provide a framework for banks and
savings and loan institutions to satisfy their CRA obligation in
cooperation with the city. It is anticipated that staff will
have the final plan completed in early 1992.
Through the Community Reinvestment Plan, staff will attempt to
link priority City objectives, such as improving Main street,
with local financial institutions. Programs developed within the
framework of the CRP will likely consist of one or more of the
following programs; 1) Technical Assistance and Loan Packaging
services, 2) Loan Pools, 3) Micro Loans, and 4) Seismic
Rehabilitation Loans. Any, or all, of these financial programs,
when in place, could be targeted to attracting neighborhood
serving retail uses on Main street while maintaining the
viability of existing businesses.
Regardless of the financial incentives utilized through the
community Reinvestment Plan, assistance by the Economic
Development Division staff will be provided to identify and work
with merchants, property owners and real estate professionals to
locate neighborhood serving uses on Main street.
CITY COUNCIL ISSUES
On October 15, 1991 the city Council discussed the Main street
Plan and Proposed Ordinance Revisions and provided staff with a
number of comments. The following responds to the issues raised
by the Council.
- 12 -
.
.-
Downtown/Coastal District Shuttle Program
Under the terms of the development approvals for the Bayview
Holiday Inn, the Guest Quarters and the Loews Santa Monica Beach
Hotel, the City is entitled to reimbursement for the operation of
a shuttle program in the Coastal District. The Community
Development Department and Transportation Department are
developing a management strategy for the operation of the shuttle
program and are organizing a marketing and promotion working
group which will be comprised of city, hotel, and convention
bureau representatives. It is anticipated that a shuttle program
will be in operation after the Hyatt Hotel is in operation.
Alternative Fuels for Buses on Main Street
Bus engine manufacturers are experimenting with various systems
to control emissions. Two systems use alternate fuels, methanol
and CNG, while a third uses a particulate exhaust trap to control
diesel emissions.
SCRTD has been serving as a test bed for alternatively fueled
vehicles. It has been experimenting with Methanol buses for two
years. According to their latest reports, almost 30 engine
modifications and maintenance procedural changes have been made,
or are being made, to improve the safety and reliability of the
buses. In addition, there are some environmental limitations.
Methanol is highly toxic and must be handled accordingly, and,
since methanol mixes with water, existing water and oil
- 13 -
.
separation drainage systems are of no use in the event of fuel
leakage.
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) has only been under study by the
SCRTD since the beginning of this year, and is still in the early
experimentation stage. Both methanol and CNG fueling systems
will require significant capital outlay for fueling facilities
and other facility improvements. Because of the significant
investment for both methanol and CNG, the County Transportation
Commission (LACTC) , which distributes funding for bus purchases,
has established a policy to fund only trap engine technology for
County bus operators (other than SCRTD), until a decision is made
by the bus industry about which technology best meets clean air
mandates.
The Santa Monica Transportation Department will be evaluating the
new diesel particulate trap on its order of buses to be delivered
this fiscal year. The traps are designed to remove approximately
85% of all exhaust particulates. The Transportation Department
intends to place some of the trap equipped vehicles on its Main
street services.
The City of Santa Barbara is utilizing battery powered electric
bus technology in two small prototype vehicles. These buses,
which resemble trolleys, measure 22' long and have a capacity of
. 27 passengers. They operate as a shuttle in the Central Business
District where they average 8 miles per hour and remain charged
for 10 1/2 to 11 hours. They can be fully recharged in 8 hours.
- 14 -
t
f
current battery powered vehicles suffer from limitations in size
and speed, which restricts their use to specialty services.
Rerouting of Buses in the Main street Area
On September 10, 1991 the City Council approved a contract with
ATE Management and Service Co. to conduct a lin~ by line analysis
for the Transportation Department. As part of the contract,
council requested that the study examine the rerouting of buses
on Main Street. Attached to this report (Exhibit F) is the
report analyzing the potential impacts of the proposal. The
study includes both an examination of the operational feasibility
of each rerouting option, and an analysis of the results of a one
day survey of passengers on the proposed changes. According to
the study, the bus reroutings raise traffic and safety concerns
due to the increased bus activity and the difficulty with the
existing street configurations. In addition to safety concerns,
over two thirds of the responses from current SMMBL bus patrons
indicate that rerouting the buses off Main street would make the
buses more difficult to use. As a result of the study, staff
recommends that the existing bus routes remain on Main street.
Financing Alternatives for Main street Improvements
Alternative financing mechanisms will be evaluated as part of the
subsequent process that will take place in the next fiscal year.
The significant improvements will most likely be funded through
the creation of an assessment district. Minor improvements such
as restriping will need to be funded out of the general fund.
- 15 -
- -- - - - -- - -
.
.
Main street Traffic Circulation Alternatives
The Main street Master Plan calls for narrowing the street to
reduce traffic speeds and to facilitate a neighborhood village
type atmosphere with outdoor dining on wide landscaped sidewalks.
To accomplish these goals, the Plan proposes to widen the
sidewalks and reduce traffic flow to one lane in each direction.
The city Council asked staff to evaluate two temporary
alternatives, a reduction in the travel lanes to one lane in each
direction with left turn lanes at the intersections, and the
establishment of a meandering traffic pattern with one lane in
each direction with diagonal parking in some areas. With both
alternatives, bus turn-outs would be provided.
staff feels that before a temporary traffic circulation pattern
is implemented, staff should conduct an examination of the
possible effects of the reconfiguration on adjacent streets. The
study would analyze the existing and future traffic volumes on
Neilson Way and Fourth street and the future levels of service at
the intersections. This analysis would be accomplished primarily
by city staff, however traffic counts from outside consultants
would be necessary. The cost of the analysis would be less than
$5,000 and take approximately four weeks to complete.
The proposal to narrow Main street to one lane in each direction
would be accomplished by providing an eight foot wide parking
lane on each side of the street, a five foot wide bicycle lane on
each side of the street, an eleven foot wide travel lane in each
direction, and a twelve foot wide med1an or left turn lane at the
- 16 -
intersections. Bus turn outs would be provided at the existing
bus stop locations. This alternative would require that the
existing double yellow and traffic lane lines be removed and that
new double yellow lines and bike lane striping and decals be
installed. The cost for this work would be approximately
$30,000.
The proposal to change the traffic pattern on Main street to a
two lane meandering route would provide the same lanes of travel
as proposed above. However, it is conceivable that parallel
parking spaces would be lost as the route winds down Main Street
unless diagonal parking can make up for the number of parallel
spaces lost. The costs of a temporary installation of this plan
would be approximately $5,000 higher than the above alternative
since the lane and median striping costs would be higher. staff
does not recommend this alternative as a temporary measure since
the configuration is more complicated and some safety issues may
arise due to the diagonal parking configuration and from vehicles
entering on to Main street from nonsignalized cross streets.
PUBLIC NOTICE
staff attended all of the Advisory committee meetings during the
eighteen months that they met to formulate this Plan. Each
Advisory Committee meeting was noticed in the Outlook.
Notification of all public hearings before the Planning
commission were advertised in The Outlook and mailed to over 500
interested persons throughout the city. In addition, the Chamber
- 17 -
of Commerce and the Neighborhood Support Center were notified of
the final public hearing before the Planning commission.
Notification of the City Council hearing on October 15, 1991
advertised in the The Outlook, mailed to the Advisory Committee,
and mailed to over 500 interested persons throughout the City.
Notification of the November 5, 1991 was advertised in same
manner.
To formulate recommendations on the Planning Commission action
and to prepare for the City Council hearing, an Advisory
Committee meeting was conducted on October 3, 1991-
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendations contained in this staff report will have a
budget impact. Should the Council wish to proceed with a trial
reduction of lanes on Main Street, up to $40,000 in funds will be
required to plan and effectuate the changes. Should the Council
authorize staff to proceed with the circulation analysis and
design guidelines, funds will be required to retain consultant
services and staff resources will be required for this project.
If Council directs staff to continue with the project, staff will
prepare a work program and estimate of costs as part of next
year's budget process.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the city Council:
1- Hold a public hearing to consider the Main Street
Master Plan and Proposed Ordinance Revisions;
- 18 -
-- ---- ---
----
\
2. Adopt the Main street Master Plan and Proposed
Ordinance taking into consideration the Planning commission
comments including the recommendation to limit the CM4
District to the southwest corner of Pico Boulevard and Main
Street;
3. Direct staff to begin the process to implement the
proposed Zoning Ordinance revisions and policy
recommendations;
4. Include as part of the FY 92-93 budget a service level
improvement and funding to prepare a Request for Proposal
(RFP) to retain consultant services for a circulation
analysis and development of design guidelines.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director, LUTM
Suzanne Frick, Planning Manager
Paul Foley, Associate Planner
-
Exhibit A: June 1991 Main street Master Plan and Proposed
Ordinance Revisions
Exhibit B: June 1980 Main street Master Plan
Exhibit c: Public Comment Letters
Exhibit 0: Public Notice
Exhibit E: Main street Building Heights and FARs
Exhibit F: Analysis of Proposed Routing Changes to Santa
Monica Municipal Bus Lines
- 19 -
- ---- -- ---
<(
I-
~
en
~
:r:
x
w
MAIN STREET MASTER PLAN AND
PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISIONS
OT]
~
-
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Prepared by:
The Main Street Advisory Committee
City of Santa Monica Planning Staff
June 1991
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction 3
II. Main Street commeroial District 6
statement of Intent
Proposed Main street Planning Boundaries Map 7a
III. proposed zoning Ordinance Revisions That Apply
to Main street
A. Proposed Revisions to C.M. Main street 9
Commercial District, Subchapter 4N
B. Proposed New Definitions 26
IV. Proposed zoning Ordinance Revisions That Will
Apply Citywide
A. Proposed Revisions to Non-conforming 28
Buildings and Uses, Subchapter 9
B. Proposed Revisions to Enforcement 29
Procedures, Subchapter 10.0
C. Proposed Revisions to Project Design and 32
Development Standards, Subchapter 5
D. Proposed Revisions to Variances, Subchapter 33
10E
E. Proposed Revisions to the Architectural 34
Review Board Ordinance, Chapter 5 and
Hearing Notification Procedures
1. Proposed Ordinance Revision
2. Sign Posting Requirements
F. Proposed Revisions to Subchapter 5E, Off Street 36
Parking Requirements for Restaurant
v. Proposed Policy Recommendations That will Apply
Citywide
A. Noise 37
- 1 -
page
B. Rezoning of Residential Properties to 39
Commercial
c. Parking Permits 39
D. Conditional Use Permit/Restaurant 39
E. Convenience Retail Incentives 39
F. Alcohol Impact Fee 40
VI. Proposed Policy Recommendations unique to Main street
A. on-Going Process 41
B. Library Hours 41
C. Parking Meter Rates 41
D. Preferential Parking Zone 2 Hour Daytime 41
Exemption
E. Non-Structural Parking Alternatives 42
F. Parking and circulation 43
G. Filming on Main street 44
VII. Aesthetics and Ambiance
A. Committee Recommendation 45
B. Short Term Goals 45
1- signage
2. Design Guidelines
c. Long Term Goals 46
1- Historic District Designation
2. streets cape Improvement
3 . Parking and circulation
4. Open Space/Community Gardens Site
Community Design Process
D. Design Guideline Process 48
ADDENDUM 1. Issues Not Approved By a Consensus Vote
- 2 -
I. INTRODUCTION
This report recommends new zoning controls and Master Plan
policies for the Main street Commercial District. The primary
goal identified by the Main street Advisory Committee is to
encourage and further develop a pedestrian oriented, village-like
atmosphere on Main street.
CM District
The Main Street Commercial District is a linear, commercial
district approximately ten blocks long, surrounded by
mUlti-family residential districts. The north end of the
commercial district begins at Pico Boulevard and terminates at
the south city border. The southern border of the district is
adjacent to Venice in the city of Los Angeles. The western
border begins and runs north/south along the center line of
Neilson Way from Pi co Boulevard to the south city border. The
eastern district border runs north/south along Second Street from
the south City border to three parcels beyond Pier Avenue. From
Pier Avenue to Pico Boulevard, the eastern border consists of all
parcels fronting on the east side of Main Street. Main street, in
Venice, is a commercial district similar to that in Santa Monica
with a height limit of 4 stories.
Main Street historically has provided the surrounding residential
neighborhood with neighborhood serving goods and services.
currently, the Street provides convenience goods and services to
the surrounding neighborhood as well as goods and services for a
wider market.
Main street Planning Process 1980
In 1980, residents of Ocean Park, commercial property owners, and
merchants of Main street developed a plan for the commercial
district known as the Main street Plan. This Plan addressed
zoning issues, parking and circulation, open space, historic
buildings, and design and development standards. A majority of
the plan was incorporated into the city's Zoning Ordinance in the
form of the CM District.
Current Main street Planning Process 1989/90
As a result of several Amendments proposed to the CM Zoning
District, the city Council, in January 1989, directed staff to
conduct a review of development standards for Main street using a
process similar to that used in 1980 to create the eM District
Regulations. A Citizen Advisory Committee, comprised of 18
voting members, nine residential members, and nine commercial
interest members met to develop revisions to ::he CM District
Ordinance.
The Committee has discussed a wide range of topics and issues
relating to a commercial district that is adjacent to a
- 3 -
residential community. Impacts of both communities on each other
have been of importance to the Cornmi ttee. In an effort to
stimulate a viable commercial community and provide needed
housing the Committee would like to encourage the development of
mixed use projects that include residential components. The
historic nature of the Main street commercial district also will
accommodate the development of bed and breakfasts. Development
of projects that provide overnight populations to Main street be
it as a guest or a resident encourage the pedestrian and
village-like atmosphere the Committee has set a primary goal for
Main street.
This report includes an update to the Main Street Plan. While
the primary goal of the Committee was to review and revise the CM
District provisions contained in the Zoning Ordinance, additional
issues unique to Main street were discussed. Historic
preservation, open space, enforcement, pedestrian use, parking
and circulation, housing preservation and incentives, future
design orientation, streetscape improvements, noise, landscaping
and signage are among the additional issues contained in this
report.
The Report is organized into five main sections:
II. CM District statement of Intent
III. ?roposed Zoning Ordinance Revisions
IV. Proposed Ordinance Revisions That Will Apply citywide
v. Proposed Policy Recommendations That will Apply Citywide
VI. Committee Recommendations Unique to Main street
VII. Aesthetics and ~mhiance Recommendations
Main street Advisory Committee Members
Russ Barnard
Suzanne Caplan
Sara Faulds
Mike Feinstein
Roger Genser
Susan Lieberman
Debra Magnuson
Craig McDonald
Brandon MacNeal
Parke Meek
Dick Orton
Elsa Petrucelli
Ruth Robinson
Laurel Roennau
Gino Rossetti
Ron Schur ·
steve Spencer
- 4 -
------- ------ - -- --
participating Alternates
Gary Elliot
Bruce Phillips
Committee Facilitators
Ken Cloke
Joan Goldsmith
City staff
Paul Berlant. Director of Planning
Suzanne Frick, Planning Manager
Paul FoleYI Associate Planner
Johanna GUllick, Associate Planner
Douglas Kim, Assistant Planner
- 5 -
II. MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
STATEMENT OF INTENT
The Main street commercial District is not simply a Neighborhood
commercial Area, Highway Commercial Zone, nor is ita Downtown
Central Business District. The Main street Advisory Committee
recognizes that a financially successful business district and
adjoining residential district are valuable and sometimes fragile
entities. commercial uses must be compatible with surrounding
residential uses.
The Main street commercial District has historically accommodated
a variety of uses, including limited residential and commercial
uses which have provided daily necessities and services, places
of employment, and leisure time opportunities for those living in
the surrounding community and the greater Santa Monica area, as
well as the areats large number of tourists.
The Main street Commercial District is in direct proximity to
adjoining residential neighborhoods and as a coastal commercial
area, it adjoins popular beach recreation areas.
The Main street Commercial District was established to encourage
physical improvements of low to moderate scale which will
continue to be compatible with and serve nearby commercial and
residential uses; be oriented to pedestrian traffic as well as
vehicular; and to encourage a variety of conunercial and
residential uses which will provide a balanced supply of goods
- 6 - .
and services consistent with the historical pattern.
The Main street Commercial District should be encouraged
to develop under design guidelines that are architecturally
compatible with the historical, unique character and scale of the
current district and the adjacent residential neighborhood.
. - 7 -
~- I
:..:~~~ --= -n_.1
! ~ -- - ...... ~~- ~~ ;"J
,~ :.......-.-,:.: ~~: ~~fV _. _ -..... ~;..
j; :~--- ,....) . -.y~;. .-,; . h -
. -'" < ", r:-"-~I' r-;,-' ~
,~' ..-:~_"J \
. ::: :_:::~~,! -'.-
T "4 _
;. ,. I 'All - ! :: )
-. , 'i,-
.. . . =-1 _ ~
' . . ; )
,,: . - ~~; ~ -, , -:
;; . ~ 'r
. , I I
:...-- Qj~-i -...... _ -- (' 'I
.. ': ' . ~ ': :- '~T :- _ . __ - ~ "U , ,/
' '..-, . ,-. -~. -II' I
---:--1---. ........,. ~
- ; :~ ~'l q T 'I r
: . -f.._:. ---=-~
I ~. .. 4 J
I ~ .. ......
I... . ~ ': :
I ,.,., - - ,
.--_. ~ ~r ,
; ~ ~--'. :..::::J"I', ,
:.: : -' (;) I ' I
j '. . . j
':" I ;
I ' . ,
t. ,
. - '.
,. r _ I __
I~.:.... ,
. I
l- '4' J
IT 1_" _
'- ~-<
f- €.f8 ' ,- :: J
I .- - . ~"'-j' - /' I-
", LL:-- .I _
~." """ f...- (.)
'ao" ..~., 8"
~ . - . . t.....l - a:
~-.: .- 1 .. ,-=, L-
., .----: . -I':' .--
3 ....'l.: -- - ~ T. ,,....
~...._.. .. . r'" - ",'I",j 0II:~"1t...11_"'."1.1.1...', \J,J
-:- - " -" - - . - -- - -
: - . , ~ - ....: - ..-' - ~~ >-:~,.":. n
tf r.~'. ,:t; - -', '~;., ....
7=- - -.-; ~J I ~L" ~ _ ~~T'. r .
l_tJ:. _ _ _ -....._ I
~ T ""f'" -. J..:..... _
.. ....... L....,.
- - ,~" ............-oJ... L' _
~ !~... L- ....._~............._.
- 17,. ~ H~I - .; - ~.. - -. . . . . ~
....-~]o . ..._1" 'I ....t ~
.~:, l~ .- '" '-::;;"" 0
~...~ '--''',
f"J< ~ ~ I.... . II ~ .
~... .' -. . : ":::...".,,, -- .
!'. ;'''-. ~ ., . ~ J - - " --.l
"'~; l u.a.......t __
. :::.'.... ' , '.~"'" /"'::::::: h_~_
i-1 ;-..."" :~~f_RT. -:' I" "\
. !... I J .; ... 1 . . ~ .. " '--"
' ;:... - ~ ."'" .....t; 0:
.. .~J.. :..-t' I ~ r~"JI ;
,- ':;::l~',~ ,~ ~, ill
. .......,.,., \~: ~ Lir~,.!J'p:':':j.:a-~:':2 _
l.,:.-....; - ..,~..J",,""": ~
....... .; -" ,--- ......~.. I w ...:::
I~. ... -":"1ft .,"'1111 ,...-.-, ok, I
" - ~'J: i "L~l '~.",i$' 111 0
;;--;:-~~::'- ~ =~ ~~ ~~ l · I (.)
t .,. - ~_I . ~ ! 1.1 1llI;:r; 'I.~tc.;,., 1 . r
[ . 1 \ "'__'-. :!
. -. .. ~--; .. . I I _~ _ . .
~",.' ~ .' .~. :~'~ l-
. m. . ;',' J ..:: . ~ I .I,l~": '1lH W
:: · '.. ~ ., . I . . - ~ ~:...:..::~ ~.,' A .-~,; 'Itl..:........: ~ W I
: !I "-." ~;.~.. f
. -. J .~..~..... 4~1''''' ~'l~ < ~
I I -. ~ "ii I... ~ L..L..
~ -. ._'-'..! '.;;&:,.......-.:' ~~ r:I~~ I-
~~-11 111_:-= 'III ~~. " 11 .. - "'I en
. . rc::~~ .... . '" ~.,---",
,. ~,. I " '- (rO ') :I.,.,.
~ r~ ..
S= -I ,...t.~
. . - ". -. ~ ... '"---' :z:
. l I" ~~-~.::: ;. ~-<'l ::l-'L~ . -~ 1
. r..,.........., I ..-..,.....
. . 'V', . , ,__, I,. J __
.. '=. , .~ ~ - , I -......
I... ~I'_' ~
.. (31 .to1..'..... - "':
. 'I ..Ii'. .. I '""'- _ f~ ._'. _ ~ ~
I -, :I .. I: . I-~. _ J. I ..c::::::::;
. . . - '. ~ .. ~) I .,
, . z: ~n:I'_
- ;..... r-~i- _ -~ I
I ~ -'~",;.'; .. -' l , - '.-I
------- -. ~ ...... . ~:,.'~.-I
. 'C':...:-;" ',- _.', f ";~:Y' /
;---;. . .~ . ~~.. -......
.~ ~Ip .J......
t .. l\....,..,~ .. . ., .... _ ._11 _ . .:J ~
! ~ .~.' . ," -.~ .1Ji---'.'" <a:
! ," '. - - -=.:- . ~ .;: 7: ~
; · ........h......,h:: .. C. ~;~ . ~
; ; :~{:..;.,:;~:::;~ ' ~~ ~ "~~'~~ ~ ! I
CHAPTER III
PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE REVISIONS
THAT APPLY TO MAIN STREET
- 8 -
- -- - -
III. A. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT (CM) ORDINANCE
The Main street Advisory Committee reviewed the CM District
Ordinance and recommends the following revisions.
Proposed revisions to the Ordinance are notated in a
strike-out and bold format as follows:
J.J strike-out = existing text proposed to be omitted from
the ordinance
2. BOLD = new text proposed to be added to th~ ordinance.
Subchapter 4N. eM Main Street ~~~~~~~ Commercial District.
section 9023.1. Purpose. The CM District is intended to
protect a special, historic commercial district and adjoining
residential neighborhood by recognizing:
(a) The Main street ~p~~j.1-:L Commercial District has
historically accommodated a variety of uses, including commercial
and residential uses which have provided daily necessities,
places of employment, leisure time opportunities for those living
in the surrounding community and the greater Santa Monica area,
as well as for the area's large number of tourists. The Main
street Commercial District is established to provide mixed use
development to accommodate housing, retail, commercial, overnight
visitor, and service uses.
(b) The Main Street ~-p~~j.~J. Commercial District j.~ j-,f
directly pt~tj;.PI-1 1-~ adjoinsjJ!g' residential neighborhoods of
high density but principally low to moderate scale. P!;!(J
Further, as a coastal commercial area it also adjoins popular
- 9 -
beach recreation areas which regularly generate a substantial
transient influx. The Main street ~p~~t~~ Commercial District is
established to encourage physical improvements of low to moderate
scale which will continue to be compatible with nearby
residential and commercial ~}'1S! tfJ"J-rft$!1'1y..j.~~ uses and which will
provide a balanced supply of goods and services consistent with
the historical pattern.
Section 9023.2 Permitted Uses. The following uses are
permitted in the "eM" Main street ~tJ~~j.~~ Commercial District if
a single use is conducted within space of less than 7500 sq. ft.
and within aD enclosed buildinq, except outdoor use where
otherwise permitted:
1~1 ,~;tj)i~1f1jfiil jl;ti!fJl p!~~p!pj! pf~1~1j!/ Pi~tfilj! jii;f$i PI95ftjtfilftl
jii~fi pfi~pfjjtjtfi)i jiiP~1fi jtPifi tjt;tt "~~tl
l~J MiY 951 tPifi! 1~11~'1tp.g Ji.;tfi!;t/ tt ~fJ5pf.siJi~tfisi '1ttPijpf. jiip.
fi!p1~I~;tfir;i ~Jijl)ijpit/ jpi jii~~~tt)jii;f~fi T/jtPI jtfifi {tfJfi~j;t.l ~9$pi)ijjtj95P.;t ;/fit
'~tjtf1 jpf ~fi~jtj~p1 JlfJ7117/
~. M!J!tfdJifi ptpf}i ;tfi5t~pit)fPiptpi;i ItJt95tfi;t.
(a) Appliance repair shops.
(b) Art galleries.
(c)7 Artist studios p~~1fi jtfJfi tjtItt "~~t.
(d)l Banks and savings and loan institutions.
II pIfiij{fit;lfiItI
(e) Barber and beauty shops.
(f) Bed and breakfast facilities provided that any
dining facility shall be limited to use by
registered guests only. Only two such facilities
- 10 -
- -- --
may be permitted in the District.
,. ~J-~i~l-~ ~)i"p~j
(g) Child day care centers.
fJ. 1J~ 7- j.f-~1-~'4~ fA1i" J
(h) Dance studios.
(i) Exercise facilities.
7. 1Jt~,.,.~~~~t,. l1~t~pt "~PP"lj
$. 1JtJt1s "1-pt~J
'J ,~~~ pt tJt1~7- ,.%pt~J
J.~. rjJpf ~tft~~W1~ ?1' ~~Y~I?~t;!rJ/
(j ),IJ Florists tJ~~~TJ and plant nursery.
(k)71 Furniture upholsterer's shops.
(1) General offices.
(mJ General retail uses.
771 ~11flpfjt;it]iJl11 ~jt;!Jt~ ;it]i~j~1
)'1 l!t~:I~t~jtJl11 19i9Jittl tT5>>~~pf ~~;i;i~tt ;ij!~t~;i.
(n))''; ~jt~pf~t1J Laundromats, ~pf~ dry cleaners.
(0) Libraries.
(p))', Medical, ~1i$il dental, and optometrist f-1.j.1ij.;.f. pt
7-~)5pt1-%ptj.j!f. facilities above the first floor
provided the use does not exceed a maximum of 3,600
square feet l~~~~t~~~tJ-~~ p~~j.~~~~ ~~p1~ ~)ij! tj.t~~
t~ppt J61'11.:l1J
J.fJ 1f!~ "%J6tf!f.' %~tj.~f!~j.f.%f.J
(q)77 print, or publishing shops.
J.$. 11.Jt1~.t}'is ,.;1~-p,.J
J.'J ~fA-p~j.t ,.;1PP" tpt ~pJt1,.~;1p7-~ f!~j.P~f!1'11-J
- 11 -
( e) Business college.
( f) Catering business.
(g) ($4) Fast-food and take-out establishments.
l.'Al Ji~f?l{t ~~$i ~~;tf.?I;J J~~f ;n~f.fil;Jl ~t lfi;J;t f.PI{ii1! PP
t}d~pl;t ~1!111 ~~ttf1. ',Dt ~~1 ~ttfifit ',Dt t~ tPI1I fltfifl
~~Ji~}ifi}i ~1 fljilttJ!fi ~f.tfifif.1 PTfitl;t',Dpl ~~11 f.~fi {t~]J.f.PI
~;zt1 lj;njtttl ~J!~ Pfi;t~pi~ i1f.t?fif./
(h) Medical, dental, and optometrist facilities at the
first floor or in excess of 3,000 sq. ft.
(i) Meeting rooms for charitable, yout.h, and welfare
organizations.
(j) Museums.
(k) ct) Music conservatories and instruction.
(1) Places of worship.
(m) ()j) Restaurants with 50 seats or more.
(n)JPIl ~jg~~t Retail stores t~ ~~t~~ with %P 30 percent or
less of the total linear shelt display area t_
devoted to alcoholic beverages.
(0) (1) Sign painting shops.
(p) (~) Theaters ~fl$4 _~$4t~ptt~~~ ~t~~ having more than 75
seats.
(q) (}{) Trade schools.
( r) wine shop devoted exclusively t.o sales of wine.
There shall be no limit on the total linear shelt
display area.
(s) (}t\.) ~~1 ~t~g~~ ~tt~p~~t1 ~t t~~~ts~p~~j t~%~stftt~$4
.
~%~ t~ ~tt~~~ ~t $J%~~ 7J%~~ ~~_t~ t~~% ~t t~~~t
- 13 -
~ja. ~f4tfljJ Pt~tf!~ ji~sl ~tfj;t4
(r)7:I Restaurants with ff4~t4t t#fl~ 49 %~ ~~~t~ or less
seats.
(s)7J Shelters for the homeless with 50 or less beds.
(t) Shoe repair stores.
(u) Tailors.
(v)77 Theaters jip)i jiJJtj.tt~tjJiJflfJ wi th tP~~t tPiflfi 75 Jtf4jltrt
or less seats.
(W)7; Wholesale stores where public is invited.
, 71. ~Jifi# ~t#!it J.lftpiJt fJJt t#f4 7~1!j'fi~ '41f1t1!tJtttjit~t pljly
ft1f.fi t~ P? JtI1f1Jlpit f.~ t#;1:11/ Ilttf.fJ;i jlP~11/ ji~)i p~t
pf~t"fJ ~P'fi~1jfdJ.ltt t~ PJi.tl~Jl.P!}ij.~~ (Jt~~tty.
section 9023.3. Uses Subject to Performance Standards
Permit. ){J61'1~J The following uses may be permitted in the eM
District subject to the approval of a Performance Standard
Permit:
( a) Residential uses above the first floor.
(b) Sidewalk cafes.
section 9023.4. Conditionally Permitted Uses. The following
uses may be permitted in the CM District subject to the approval
of a conditional use permit: ,a1i$i! %Jd}61~stY. %~ %)1~ ~tJJ!stj,a)'.
~~1'1~j%tp~~ ~p~%.at~~~ )~ $~~t)~n 1~JflJ7j
( a) Automobile repair facility. .a1'1~ ~~t1jst~J
(b) (~) Bars. t$~~ %~~tt~1'1 ~~JflJ71J
(c) Billiard parlors.
(d) Bowling alleys. .
- 12 -
-- - -- ----
_t~~.j Any permitted use in the lIeMII Main street
commercial district conducted within a space in
excess of 7500 sq. ft. of floor area and within and
enclosed building.
(t) (}'1) ~~1 _t}'1g~~ ~~~~p_}'1~1 ~t ~~}'1%t~~~~_, j}'1%~gt~%~~
Any use permitted on the CM Main street Commercial
District conducted in a space exceeding )11_;- j}'1
~tt~__ ~t 75 linear feet of ground-floor Main
street frontage.
(u) ~}'11 ~tj~%j}'1~ ~~~ ~j_~j}'1~ %p ~~~ t~S)l1~~tt1 ~~~~~)11~~~
~}'1%~t%~j}'1~~}'1t t~t ~~jt~ t~~t~ ~~~~~ ~~ j}'1~~~~~%;.
p~t}tj}'1sJ
(u) All uses other than those specifically permitted,
uses subject to performance standards or
condi tionally permitted uses, that are determined
by the zoning Administrator to be similar and
consistent with those specified uses.
section 9023.5 Prohibited Uses. The following are
specifically prohibited in the "eM" District:
(a) Bars above the first floor.
I.~J ~j~~~p~t~_J
I.tJ ~j~~j~t~ p~t~~t~ ~}'1~ p~p~ ~_~~~J
I.~J J!p~~;fll~ _~~~t~J
(c) (~) Cinemas.
(d) (t) Drive-in or drive-through uses.
(e) (rg) Game arcades.
(f) Hotels.
- 14 -
- - - - ----
(g) Liquor stores other than those conditionally
permitted.
(h) Motels.
J.j.J ~~~_j.J ~~~~ _~py~ ~~~ ~~~pn~ t~pptj
J.iJ ~~~~~~t~~~~ _~py~ ~~~ ~~~~n~ t7p~tj
J.XJ ~~tf~tj.~~%~~ ~~~~j
J.j.JJ.~J ,..~t ;.tt>~1i~j.~1i pI ~;.~1-~ j.tJ. ;.tj.~1-j.~fI1 t;.~~~)t1t.~1-~
)6~t~1i~ t)i~ pt~~~1i~ )'1)IJ.}1\~;.t pI ~;.~t~j pt py;.t ,~
~;._~~j ~)ij.t)i~y~t j.~ fI1t;.~~ptj t/ 1-)ip ptpyt~j.P1i~ pI
. %;.~%j.P1i '~~pj7 ~t;. ;.t~~;.~;.~j
section 9023.6 Property Development standards. All
property in the eM District shall be developed in accordance with
the following standards:
(a) Maximum Building Height and FAR. Maximum building
height, number of stories, and floor area ratio shall be
determined as follows: 'l'/'ffi1't/ ;tP1filIJ j,$flI t/'f1'flIflI J;1fijgfiJt ~j;tJt1'j~t;t jJ!
1J;!i! 7flPf7 pj;tttjrtJtj 14!1 FitfiiFifi1'Jtl ftlfil;t;tjjjjir;i ti! jtf!fi 7fl}f7
Jl't{ttt;irtjt~r;i %f!filll fill%~ ~t/ rtJfil;trtttt,r;i ti! pi. f!fit~P1t rj.j;tttt'tJtj
$JLtlrj.tJ!1 j{~tgJ;!jt lt1fitJt{t t;1. JtJ;!p {tFiFft~tft~ rJ.j;tttttJ!{t r;lFftrtt1;1p1.f.fir) ~p1
jtfiFft pfii;1.j;1.g }flip {tf!filll ~fi lirt tfiillfii~rt/
District Max Max No. Max
Height of Stories FAR
CM2 27' 2 1.5
CM3 35' 3 2.0
CM4 SEE ADDENDUM 1
- 15 -
------------ - -- ---
>t
~~f~1 ,BJdt.lf4j)l.9J J.1'1 ~)l.. t~f:Z 1Jj.~tttt% ~)i-'):): 1'1~t ~tt~~~ t>tp
~t~t)~~ ~1'1~ '7 t~~t 1.1'1 )l.~j.9J)l.tl
~~fJJ ~)lij.):~t~<<~ t1'1 t~. ~fJ ~j.~ttJ.~t ~)i~.l.l 1'1pt .tt~~f4 t)l.t~~
~%ptj.~% p1'1~ ;4% t~~% 1.1'1 )l.~j.9J)l.tJ
~'Vlf~1 .B)lij..l~j.1'19J J.1'1 t)l.. ~'Vlf~ ~J.~ttj.t% ~)l...l.l 1'1pj! ~tt~~~ tp)lit
%tptJ..~ P1'1f4 ~7 t~.t J.1'1 )i~j.9J)l.tl
,'/;t t)i. p;itpP~.~ pt j!)l.,i}!l %.t%j.p1'1' )l.~j9.t~% ').,i~,i% j.j. %)l.. Jrtpt,i~Jd~
tp'/;t }'l.J!)9J)l.% __ ~j!tj.)'lJ!~ 'Pi %)11._ t)l.PPt.J!tJ J!t~.l)li~j)'l9J p_t~PJ!t_'
~.t)l.P1'1j.tp.l )1p;i~j."'9J ~.,.~ rj;t)l.~t ~PP)4tt.1'1~.,.t tpptf%PP j.tt)li~t)lit~~ ,/;t
P.1i~tt~tj.p1'1" j.Jdt)1 _,. "~1)j.9J)1t%J ,.t.~J~~.I.l,.' y.)'ltt')._%t~)'l _%tJ_ ~)'lf4
p%)l..t ~t~)1j.%.t%Jdtp.l _Jrt~1ij.tt._ j.1'1t.)'l~.~ t~ ~j.,.tj.)'l9J)4j.%)l. t)l.J! ~y~t~.l.l
!A.~J.91}'l.J )6)lij! }4)l.J..rt1l. S!~ }'l.p% t.1if4 %p ~'P~~)4t. t)l.J! j.ll.t.}'l.f4~f4 )l.J!j.9J)l.%
.lj:,.Ptl> J
.
l~l 'Vlttj.~)li~/1.l'/;~t/~t.t/~~%j.rj;1
~'Vlf~j .II% l,:p.
~'Vlf;4j J./~ lp:j(
~'Vlf~j J.I% 1AA
Multi-residential units devoted strictly to apartment residential
uses shall be computed at one-half (1/2) the actual total floor
area.
There shall be no limitation on the number of stories of any
struoture whose floor area contains 50% or more residential uses
so long as the height does not exoeed the maximum number of feet
permitted in eacb District.
- 16 -
.
(b) Front Yard Setback. A front yard shall be provided
and maintained. The Required front yard shall be provided as
follows:
1. For those parcels fronting on Main street, the minimum
setback shall not be less than twelve (12) teet wide and may not
exist as a building courtyard. On through parcels the front yard
shall be the Main street frontage.
2. For other parcels in the district, required front yard
space may be provided in any configuration on any floor or floors
provided the first floor front yard area is not less than 3
percent, or 6 percent for corner parcels, of the site area.
Only that portion of any driveway forward of the toremost
building line which treated in an aesthetic manner similar or
identical to the remainder of the front yard shall be included in
the computation of the front yard area. Said yard shall be
calculated ~~y_ ~ ~t~t~~~ ~_~%~ as follows:
;1.1 ~~~~~%_%t~~/~t~_~_tp~_/~tJy_~_tl ;R.e~.lt_~ f.t~1i%
t_t~ _~_t_ ~_1 ~_ pt~y.l~_~ .l~ _~t ~~flttg~t_%J~1i pp _111 t;r.~pt ~t
t;1.~pt_ ptpy.l~_~ %~_ ttt_% t;1.~pt _t__ .l_ pp% ;r.~_~ %~_11 P p_t~.e11%
~t %~.e _.l~_ _t__ _~~ t_ 11~% ;1.___ %~_p _Jg~% t.e.e% ~.l~.el 1;11"/.1 %)1_%
ppt~.lpn ~f. _ ~ttY.e~_t f.~~_t~ pf. %~_ tpt_~~_% ~~tJ.~.l~~ ;r.tn.e ~~.l~~
j._ %t__%.erA JtJ. ;(l'i _.e_%)1.e%tst ~_f1~.et _J~j.J._t ~t ;..~.eWtj.~~J. ~~ t~.e
t.e~1-Jf1rA.et ~f. :t~_ tt~f1:t i_trA _}'i_;l;l )5_ ;..)'1$C;l)trA.erA Jf1 %)1_ Jt~"tLP~%_%J~11
9';1 tt9';111- 'I_tift _t__1
1 7. CM-2 District, east ~j~~ of the centerline of Main
street. Parcels fronting on Main street shall be setback a
- 17 -
minimum of 2'0" from 'the greatest setback of the adjacent
building on either side, or 10' whichever is less. For all other
parcels, a front yard equal to 3 percent of the total site area
shall be required for the first floor only or for parcels 35 feet
wide or less, the average setback of the adjoining buildings at
the street frontage, whichever is less. All Corner parcels shall
provide a front yard equal to six percent of the total site area
for the first floor only and will be required to have a minimum 8
foot sideyard sidewalk which may include the public right of way.
2.). CM-2 District, west of the centerline ~t~~ of Main
street. parcels fronting on Main street shall be setback a
minimum of 2'0" from the greatest setback of the adjacent
buildings on either side, or 10' whichever is less. For all
other parcels, a front yard equivalent to 3 percent of the total
site area multiplied by the number of floors of the structure, or
for parcels 35 feet wide or less, the average setback of the
adjoining buildings at the street frontage, whichever is less.
All Corner parcels shall provide a front yard equal to six
percent of the total site area on the first floor only and will
be required to have a minimum 8 foot sideyard sidewalk which may
include the public right of way.
3.'. CM-3 District, same as CM-2, west of the centerline
%t~~ of Main street.
4.f$. CM-4 District, same as CM-2, west of the centerline
%j~~ of Main street.
- 18 -
(c) Rear Yard Setback: A rear yard shall be provided
and maintained. Said yard shall have a minimum depth as follows:
1. CM-2 District, east of the centerline ,t~~ of Main
street.
No rear yard shall be required for one-story structures and for
the first floor of a two story structure, provided that any
portion of the first floor which is within five feet of the rear
property line is not more than nine feet in height and is fully
enclosed, i.e., without windows, doors, or ventilation openings
permitting visual access to adjoining residential property. Any
portion of the first floor that either exceeds nine feet in
height or is not fully enclosed shall be at least five feet from
the rear property line. The minimum rear yard requirement for
the second story portion of a two story structure shall be 7' 20
feet.
a. Use of Rear Yard. Commercial use in the
required rear yard is not permitted.
b. Non-commercial uses and parking are permitted
in the rear yard to the rear property line on the ground level.
c. Use of Roof in Rear Yard~ No portion of the
first floor roof within 15 feet of the rear property line may be
used for any purpose other than access for building maintenance
and repair. The remaining setback area )'i~It~ ;z.~ tfA~~ may be
privately used (not open to the public) if enclosed with a solid
six foot barrier. ~~fi 'It~rJ~'I fj~~ttJyf t#~j! pt~Y~yfj!;t yj;tJJ.flJ
jyfj!t]i.~;t~yf ~t flfij~t~t~tJ tfi~jrJ~f!j!jflJ ptrjpfit1y/
d. Exception. There shall be no rear yard
- 19 -
---- -
setbacks required where existing parking improvements and common
ownership extend through to Second Street.
2. CM-2 District, west of the centerline _t~_ of Main
street. No rear yard shall be required for a one-story
structure, provided that any portion of the first floor structure
which is within five feet of the rear property line does not
exceed nine feet in height. Any portion of the first floor that
exceeds nine feet in height shall be at least five feet from the
rear property line. The minimum rear yard requirement for the
second story of a two story structure shall be ~~1~~ _~~ p~~f~_~t
five feet.
3. CM-3 District. Rear yard requirements in the CM3
District shall be the same as those required in the CM-2
District, west of the centerline ~J~~ of Main street, for one and
two story structures.~j~~ A minimum t~~,it~~~~% pt ~ 15 t~~% foot
rear yard setback for any portion of a third story is required.
4. CM-4 District. (Pending resolution at Planning
commission and city Council public hearings).
(d) Side Yard Setback. None.
(e) Development Review. A Development Review Permit
is required for any development of more than J%/~~~ 11,000 square
feet of floor area.
section 9023.7. Specia+ Project Design and Development
Standards. Projects in the CM District shall comply with the
following special project design and development standards.
(a) First floor uses must be 17PJifJJt;t t;!1ttP~7Y
pedestrian oriented uses. ,.. p)d)6~,i~ ,if11 Pt~'ft ~~~~)6~,i~~~~~~ j~
- 20 -
p~~ %~~~ ~_~t%. ~~%t1 t~t %~_ ~~tpp__ pt ~pt~s ~~~t~~_. tp %~_
p)iJ6Jj~ s~1f~t;.JJ.1 j 1>-1f ~.:t;.~J..t_~tt15~:t ~p~~ 1i.'!S:t Jp~fJ. 1.:t;. ~)iJ6Jj~
tyiy J-:t~~ ~~~t~~%~t ~_~;.)6.;._ %)1_ ~)4;..t1i~;.;. tt;.t J6IJ. YJt ;'Pppj.1i%JIi_1i%
P1fJ.t j pt ~IJ.~,.)d.;._ ,. t~t_P:ttpJi ,.t~,. pt p%)1_t J-.,.~~t.,.,.J. }6,.ttJ.IJt J-;.
J.1f:t~tpP;'~~ }6~%~~fJ.yi :t)1~ p)6.}6J.J-~ ;..,.~ }6)6.;.jyi~~_ ptt1.~fJ.;'J
1.J61 lj.t;.:t tJ.Ppt t_:t,.J.J. pt tIJ.;.t,.)it1-Ji% )4;'fJ.;' _;'1 _~:t~1f~
%~ ,. JIi~tt"1iJ-1ifJ. J.fJ.1_J. 1fp% fJ.~~fJ.fJ.~j.1iS ~~ P~t~~~:t pI :t)1~ ttt;.% IJ.ppt
,.t~,.)
I.ftl ~_~P1i~ t).ppt tfJ.%,..tJ. )i;.~;. ~~J-~)1 ~)4;.:t YJIJ. Yft~}dJli)6..,.j.:t1
ptj.fJ.1i~_~)? rpt ~)6.tpP;'~;' pI %)1j.;. $_~%j.pyij YftP}d}d)6.lfJ-:tt ptj._1i%_~Y ).;.
~fJ.tj.1i_~ ,.. %)1P;'IJ. )6.;.fJ.;' ~~J-~~ ptpYJ-~~ ~~~fJ.ttj.,.J. SPP~;' J.j.~fJ.J.1 %p J6_
~P1i;.)i}d~~ pyi ;. tfJ.S)i).;.t }6;.;.j.;. }.1i %)1fJ. 1iP~"J. J.j.t~ pI %)1_ ;.~jpJ-yij.lfS
~p}d}d)ifJ.J-'ttJ
(b)jS'il ,.~;tJt~7JI~;fjt.:t flPS'i ~~1;t ~1~ ,jpftJt~si jt.f>> jt.1~
p!;ttfil~Jt:tJliJil1!pfjt.:t 11!'tfil1).tfilpfj!, P~1 ~l~~Jl lJl.pf'~';t ~jt.Jli~rlf-:t'j! ;tpp!)tf-lj~S'i
f-f! tJlitfJ {J~)tJt;t95pfl / J It ~195)tJl j;t ~iJ!j.;!~fl ji;t /di!jpig ~~tJ1 ;ttf/~;t ~I
~fltpi ~f.r1!~jt. {ipiyl tJ4~ ~ylj~;t1!pft ;ttylp!;t tj! filylj~;t;ftpfg ;ttflP! 'tt~1!f.;t)' I
Restaurants and bars are limited to a total of two establishments
per block unless otherwise specified in this section. For
purposes of this section an establishment may be a restaurant, a
restaurant with a bar, or a bar. A block is defined as both
sides of Main street and the adj acent sides of adj oining side
streets. t
Portions of Main street to be designated "Block" for the purpose
of this section are:
- 21 -
Block 1: South City Limits to Marine Street.
Block 2: Marine Street to Pier Street.
Block 3: Pier to Ashland.
Block 4: Ashland to Hill.
Block 5: Hill to Ocean Park.
Block 6: Ocean Park to Hollister (Total of 4 restaurants
and bars permitted in this block).
Block 7: Hollister to Strand.
Block 8: Strand to Pacific.
Block 9: Pacific to Bicknell.
Block lO: Bicknell to Bay.
Block 11: Bay to Pico.
(c) North of Ocean Park Boulevard restaurants shall be
subject to the following requirements:
1. only one restaurant on the east side of each block
shall be permitted.
2. Restaurants on the east side of each block shall be
limited to 75 or less seats.
3. No more than 200 seats per each block shall be
permitted, except that no more than 400 seats shall be permitted
in Block 6.
fi~ f!~'I r~pftptJiljif!t;t ~#ptll /b~ p~tp1.ttt~~ ~f! Jlfl.tf! ~tt1!1!t 1)f!ttl
tf1~ fltt1 fl~JLf!JZtl ~~t~tTfl;i'.fi.~;t tfi;tj! ;t t?'/;i'.fiyl ~, tfi~ flJl P;i'.;ttt;i'.;tj! /tJpt;t
~~~;f JZ~p1pl~j!~r;i/ '~t ~JJtp~;t~;t ~I 1j1;i'.;t ~fiJZ;:;t~Ff.1 pi. 7Ff.fi'/7 tfi:ttf1.Jit;tP!1
;tPi;t;l1 ;i'.f!JZI1)fl~ jip!Y t~;tljtJJtji;fj! Ff.~j! jtll~jtr;i1 ;i'.;l ~p~rpij!;i'.~;l ~t piPPt~Yfifl
/by tPffi ')fI.;lpitf!fj ;~p1.p1.t;t;tt~f! pI j;;1 j!;; yfl.f!7).9it1 JJ1 J JJl P? J Y jj!]! j!Pffi
~;tJZfipj!;t;;f! ~t pi 1~~tpi1)tjtP!t l~fiIttfifl Itt 7JlJJ1 ~;tjp! ;1j!tfifit/ 'lPf~
Pt~tif-t~tj!t~p1 jifjptjpf;tt 7pffiY7 tfipftji1J.t;tJift;t ;ttif-ptll pl.9Jt ptPPl1 j!9J >t]f;tp1gfiJt
- 22 -
jp! ~'IP!~tjt~j(J ~f t~jtJ!~Jit~P!tP ~lt~~r)y jp! tj'Ht;.J!;ltjP! ~t ~(J(Jt~y~r) /by
;#1/ ?JfJ.p1p1jpg ~;;p1.p1j~~j;;p! ~,..j;;,.. t;; 07fJ.p!]JfJrt JP/ Jflflfl/ ~~;t1/~f. '-18
~tPf~ty;l;t~ Pf~yjr)~)l jp! ;tJ1.~;t~;tf.t~p! 1#)'/
!f~;tf.~Jl.t~P!f.;t V ttPf lIlfZJt~ J!f1~P! JiJ1 ;t~fJ.j!;t/ t~;tj!~Ji~fl.p1.f.;t T/ttfJ ~
jtJl./A;tt~pij!tpil j!pijt~f~Jlj! /bJi;tt;!flfi{t/ 9ipir) 9iJ4.Y ;t~~~J4.)lffltjtjt t~;tj!;'Jltpi;!j!
]iPfl vtll ffl)j1J.ttfl ~ ~~pir)jj!j~J4.pil f/fifl ?f1tpttf.1
Cd) On-sale Alcohol outlets may not exceed twelve in number
north of Ocean Park BoulevarCl. Of the twelve total on-sale
outlets, no more than five shall have on-sale general licenses.
(e)lf1J Bars may not exceed PflY~P! four in number south of Ocean
Park Boulevard, nor tj.Y14 two in number north of Ocean Park
Boulevard. )fJ6 )6;it" ;.)1;():): )614 ;lj6jt;i:ti!f! p)'1 _'/'11 )!;(j)1 ~1-ti!i!1- JtJ6tTt~t;.1
l1J6t p~tPJ6P~p J6t 1-)1,1;. ;.~~1-t~1iJ )6;(t" ;(t14 f!~t,11it4~ ;(p ~;.1-;i)6;lj.P)1~i!1i1-P
;vj.1-),! YJS)/t)6;lj.,t 'tJt;.~,1P;'''Y ;l,i.IDiJ6t ;lj.Jt_)'1~;.;. ;i}'1~ t;.;.~.a}l1t.a-,1~;. ~,1:t)'! ;i
;lj.ID4~t ,.~t1,11irA t;ijtj.;lj.tt %)'!;(% ,1,. p)11;.j.Jt;(J.;l1 ,.;.JS.at;i%;. ttfJ;t 1-)1i!
91j.1ij.1ig ;tt;.;i ;i;r1~ I.;. t;'S}/1;l;it;l1 fJ"P;.t;i%~~ $!~t,1-,1rA )1fJ}/1tP 1ifJ1-
;.fJtt~"PfJ-,191j.-,1rA %JfJ t9595$! 'l>i!tJ!,1jt;. }I1JfJ}/1t;.)' 1 ~J6.".~j.%j.j6."..a;l ~;'t4 ,;.~j.:t,.
;iti! t;'JID4j.t;.~ trt>t ;i;lJ. )6;(t'l>l
(t) Existing uses anCl existing number of seats shall
count toward the total number of bars and restaurants and seating
requirements permitted within the District.
(g) An existing use shall be considered no longer existing
if that use is changed to another type of use or if for a period
of one year, such use has not been in operation.
(h) In structures housing mixed commercial and
residential uses, parking above the first floor shall be allowed.
- 23 -
- -- -- -- - -----
~%~f!t _f!~%t~n_ ~t %~j_ ~~.a~%f!t n~%~t%~_:t.n~tn~1 %~~
IrpJ.J.p,q)1'1rg tf!JIDAJ-ti!1J.i!1'1%;. .s~;iJ.J. ."P~"J."/ pt J.JIS)/fs! -;.'Ii;.j.t Irj>t JI)iJ-$Z!)'1 .
~~)J.~j.~rg ~f!~j.% ~t ~~~ "Pf!~J-~ t;. ~p~~)i~ .t~l!t ~~%p~_t ~~I ~'$~I
J.j 'f.t.%f!tj.Pt ~.J.J. ;i1'1>4 JI)1ijrj>~ tP1i;.tt)d.$Z!j!.j.p1'1 )l\)i.st )Sf! j!.p ji
)l\j.~j.)l\)d)l\ ~'1~ t.a1-J-1'1rg rp,. ~f;1 ji.s s4J!1-f!#lt1ii!~ }lSy %)'1f! J(~1~ rpt p%)f.f!t
~j.-;.j.J.jit ji$Z!~f!P%f!>4 t~>4)d;.%tt .s:tji1i>4.at~J
J.j 'f.t.1.f!tJ-JlSt YJJlSJlSt.s jift>4 ?;pptrjjiy.sl
jil YJJlSpt.s -;.)d.s% PSi! .sPJ.J-~ tJlSti! JlSt )l\J-1'1i!t;iJ. IJ-)1-i!s41
)s1 ~ppt.s )l\)d..s% )S~ ~ji.s~I!j!.f!>4 :tP ptp1j.~_ . __.) jij!. iif!ji>41
;')1-1- .a11>4 "jji)l\)5j
tJ )1;lj.1i f!tJ.%tjitJ.ti! -;')4;'1. $Z!JIS~j!.;i.ill ji11 Y jiJtp)i1;.1.J-Jt "J.IJJt~Y JlSt
p%)f.l!t 1!~J-1.)f!1it Y.sP)4~>4 :ttjipYI
'ft.J :I'J'ii! J-11%f!1l% pI 1-ii);. 1>f!rt%j.p}i .i;. %'/> t~~)ti! ;{1'1
i!.s%ji)SJ..i1>)i)l\i!ll% ptp1j.~j.}it f!1i:tf!t%jij.1i)l\i!1i% '/>t J.pJd>4 )l\Jd.sj.rt
1-JIS tJlS1i1.;l)1i %)1i! tf!;.JdJ.j!..i~s ;.JlSJd1i~ 1itJJ-,.IJ rjj.,tii,i1'1 )%.s
~ji1-J.1> j!.JIS %)1f! stIJji%f!.s% IJt.%_1i% PPP.sJ-)SJ.f!J
ljl ~p%J#j.%)f..s%ji1i~)ftS .s~f!$Z!)tj.$Z! ;'~f!$Z!j.;iJ. tf!f.~tf!11rtf!.s tJlS1'1,tjij.1iIJ'ft.
)1f!tf!J-1i1 1-iif! ~trj>1).sj.rj>1i.s JlSt ~Jd)5t~ji~%i!t ~~ jit~ 1iJlS:t )l\i!ji1'1:t %'1> ,appJ.y
%,/;1
J.I J3.sf!.s J-1'1 f!t.;...s'ti!1i$Z!i! 16)'1 ~$Z!%tJ}lS~t J.~I J.~~~I ti!sjit'ft.J.f!.s1> Pf.
$Z!)i;iJisf!" pj JIS"l1if!t,.y,}.PJ )i1iJ.f!.s}!l %i1f! }t1.sf! J-" j.1i%f!l1.sj.tj~s! )S'/ ;i tl-JlS16t
;itJ!;i .as4s!j.:tj.rj>1i pI )l\PtIJ %)1ji)'1 ~, lif!tti!yi1. r/>t 'Pi P%i1i!t .s}t1)S.s%.a1i%j..al-
j.1i%f!1'1.stlJ-$Z!;l%J-r/>1i1 _Ji1t)f. ;l.s %~J! t1i%tr/>~)4$Z!%J-tJ~ JlSt t~SJi1);lt~'/ .s$Z!~~s4)i~~>4
~y1.%~t%;lj.~)l\~yi%1 ~trt~P% %i1;{% %J'if!t~ "1t;iY }lS_ )'1jlS ~f;ti! %J'i;{11 ;{J1
j.1i$Z!t~i!1'1t.a~ t)'1~t~ji~~ )1'1 %)1i! ~i!t1j.$Z!~ .at~.a t~f;~t ~pji~~ pt ~;{t~ jiyi~
t"~1-;lJdt;l1i%~J
J.J ~)i;i11~i!~ 1-11 ~~IJ ~iiJ-~ii ti!.s~~% .i1'1 ~ ~.s" P"t1J.)%%~s! j.J1 %J'ij.~
- 24 -
-- - -- - - -
~~~t)i_p~~t %)i~% J._ ;r.~-_ J.Jf%~l1__ %)iJ(ri %)1" t)1tt,al1% ;{%_I
"j!:tj.~tj.yl.!d )1_~_ ~)i1-;l;l tjZ\Jdl1t tjZ\}41.tfi 'tii,a 'tpt,.;r JiJd)1i)tS,at fJt )tS1-t~
;.~~ t~pt1-~t1-11tp p_~jtt_~ ~j.~)ij~ t~~ Y;J.;.tttttJ ,.. t;{tt_~tl-1
~t.i_t.i~~ ;t~~ p)i~l-l- )tS~ ~jZ\l1~J.!i,at~~ 11jZ\ l-fJyl.~,at _tj._'tj.yl.~ .it t)i~t ~__
J._ 1P;r.;tl1t~tt;r.t ~)i~11~_~ jZ\t J.p ~)tS~yl.~fJl1~~ tjZ\t ;. p_tj.fJ~ fJt fJl1,a 1,a.tl
.
- 25 -
III. B. PROPOSED NEW DEFINITIONS
Definitions to be included in subchapter 1, General Provisions,
Section 9000.3
BAR. An establishment with a "public premises" liquor license
and restaurants with a liquor serving facility that is physically
separate (separated by a wall wi th access through a door) from
the dining area and is regularly operated during hours not
corresponding to food service hours.
.
- 26 -
CHAPTER IV
PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISIONS
THAT WILL APPLY CITYWIDE
,
- 27 -
IV.A. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO NON-CONFORMING BUILDINGS AND USES,
SUBCHAPTER 9
The Main street Advisory Committee would like to protect the
IIhistoric" nature of the district. Preservation of historic
landmarks or historically significant structures on Main street
should be encouraged through Ordinance.
REPLACEMENT
In an effort to provide some protection to historic, non
conforming buildings, in the event of a disaster, the following
change is proposed:
section 9080.2,(f)
Rebuilding. A non-conforming building which is damaged or
destroyed to an extent of one-half or more of its replacement
cost immediately prior to such damage may not be restored to
its non-conforming condition but must be made to conform to
the provisions of this Chapter. A designated landmark
structure or historically significant building identified in
the Mall Design Guidelines or Historic Resources Survey as a
category 1 through 5 structure 9St ~;(I,I ~~~j.s}'1 ~)/t.1~;1I.I.1)'1.eJ!l
which is damaged or destroyed may be rebuilt if the building
is rebuilt to its fJt.1s.1r.~.J. f.~~~;1IJ square footage, site
orientation, and height and setbacks, that existed prior to
the destruction.
REPAIRS
In an effort to preserve and protect existing structures and not
force them to deteriorate until they must be removed the
following change is proposed:
Section 9080.2 (a) Repairs and Alterations.
(2) Repairs and alterations may be made to non-conforming
commercial or industrial buildings provided there is "l
no
expansion or increase in the square footage of the existing
building. ptpy .1~;1I~ %piif~ r.~ f.ttJ6.~y.)it,a;r ,aJ.~~t~%.1~tJ._ f.)1~;l;r )S~
Jrt,a~.e JI)1j.~)1 JlfJ)i;l~ ptPJ.j61'1s tii,e ;lj.t.e fJt %}'i.e ~)ttppfJt%.1Ji2f }\\.e}\t)S.et~
pt ;. )oJ4..1;I~.1Ji$d' J!l)/t,ltii ;f~ }6;11;ft.1Jisg JI;.,I;I,., fl!j6;I)i}\\}'1~' )5J!;.}\t~, fJt
f!.1t~j!t~J $%tJ4.~%J4.t,a,I j!;IJ!}\tJ!}'1;':~ }\tift )S.e }\tfJ~jtj..e~ pt t.ep~j.t.e~ tt
%P1.e ~J4.j.;I~j.Ji~ ~ttj.fI!.et ~J!'tJ!#j.1i.e~ t}'i~% ~J4.fJ)1 }\ttJ~.j.tj.~/J.%j.fJJi fJt
ti!p,aj.t .1_ j.~Jft.e~j./J.'ti!;rt r..e,lt.e,.,.,att y.fJ ptfJ%.e~:t t)1j! )1.e.a.It;t .ali~
;.,ati!t1 pt tP1i! p)i}6,lj.,lt ~t ~~~)iP;1]i:t_ ~t 't}'i,e 11fJ}'1f~fJ}'itfllt}l1j.l1)j
}6J4.t)~j.1i~ fJt ;1~i;..ti!Ji:t ptpPi!t%t .a1i~ 1-;tj! .tfJ~% ~Pi!~ lip1- .et.t.e;1l~
~f1;.f)1;.1.t pt %)1;11 t;.P1..ajtj!}\\;1I1ij!. jtPf.:t 9St %pi,e .,.pr.fjtP1itj6#Lj.j1~
}6J4.j.;r~j.11~J
- 28 -
IV. B . PROPOSED REVISIONS TO AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES, SUBCHAPTER 10.0,
The Main street Advisory Committee recommends the following
changes to the Enforcement portion of the Zoning Ordinance.
These revisions specifically address repeat violations of the
Zoning Ordinance through an increase in fees for violations and
revocation of a business license upon a third violation instead
of a fourth violation.
1. PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISIONS
section 9150.6. Business License Revocation or Suspension.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, the
Zoning Administrator may suspend a business license for 30 days
or less, or may revoke a business license issued pursuant to
Article VI of the Code if the holder of such business license has
violated the provisions of this Chapter or the terms and
conditions of any permit or approval as provided for in section
9150.3 in accordance with the procedure set forth in this
Section.
(b) Upon being notified of a ;tpi.it~ second violation of a
zoning Ordinance Section, or conditions of a permit approval,
within a three (3) year period from the date of the first
violation, ~, 91#1 pr~'/tttt~J! ~! tJ1ttt f7J191pt~r ~r tJ1~ t~tJl'1tt 91p1.~
;t~J!fittt~J!% ~, 9lp1.y %91p1~ p~rJl'1tjt ~r 91Ppr~'/911/ the Zoning
Administrator shall notify the person that a !f2$Ji.YtJf third
violation of the Zoning Ordinance section or conditions of a
permit approval, ~Ji.tjJ!g %Ji.;t# ;tpJ~J!fi~r Y~91t within three (3) years
of the date of the first violation %#plJJ may result in the
suspension or revocation of the person's business license.
(c) Upon being notified of a third t#~ J!~~t violation of a
zoning Ordinance section, or conditions of a permit approval
~Ji.tjpg pi ~pJ~p1.~pit Y~~t within a three (3 ) year period from the
date of the first violation, '~JJ~ytp1.g t#fi! pi~jtjJt~ Pt~,/j~~~ 1'l5t jpi
;tJi.~;t~Jtjttf2$pi J~Y/ the Zoning Administrator may notify the person of
the revocation of the person's business license.
- 29 -
section 9150.7. Right to Appeal.
( a) Any person may appeal the suspension or revocation of
the business license ~)it;s)i~}'i% :tiD ~~Jt%tiD}'l. rpJ.'~J" in accordance
with the following procedures:
(1) A notice of appeal shall be filed with the Zoning
Administrator within fourteen (14) days from the date of the
third violation notice.
(2) The Planning Commission shall hold a hearing on the
appeal within ~% 60 days of the date of the timely filing of the
appeal. The City shall give the appellant at least tt1~ ten (10)
days notice of the time and place of the hearing. The Planning
Commission shall render a decision with 15 days of the date of
the hearing.
(3) The decision of the Planning Commission shall be
final except for judicial review and there shall be no appeal to
the City Council.
(4) Any notice revoking or suspending a business
license pursuant to this Section shall set forth the appeal
rights as provided for in this subsection.
/.%1 "'"/1"/ }'ip%tt.~ pt t"1fJ~p..,.j.p1i or suspension Ip1J1.~yi
pJit1Jiplpij! j!~ j!fijp ~~;tj!jfjpi 1fiplll /b~ fl?iiil Jip~pi j!fi~ ~;tpjtplj!jfj?i 1'>f
tP1J1 jilpPJ1ill p~tl~yi If pJ~ pippi!;iJ j;t ttfl1~JY fjJi!si ~t Jl.p~pi j!Pi~
<J.~~I;ttfj?i fjl J!f1t! ?l;ipi}!j;i}/ ~~fI1JlIj;t;tj~pJ If ilpJ ;ipPi!piJ Ip 111i!r)./
Section 9150.8 77J19/7 Enforcement Fees.
(a) An enforcement fee shall be paid to the City by each
person who has violated the provisions of this Chapter or the
terms and conditions of any permit or approval as provided for in
Section 9150.3. The purpose of this fee is to recover the costs
of enforcement from any person who violates the provisions of
this Chapter or any permit or approval.
(b)- Fees shall be assessed as follows:
(1) For the first violation 9l)i,t.l}'10 :t)l.j! ~p.7j!}'1~1it yl;1it
there shall be no fee.
- 30 -
(2) For the second violation ~~tt~g ~~~ .~~~ ~~~_~~~t
t_~tj ~~~ t_~ ~~~~~ ~~ $~~~)~~) of the Zoninq ordinance section
or conditions of a permit approval, within a three (3) year
period from the date of the first violat.ion, the fee shall be
$100.00.
(3) For the third violation and each subsequent
violation of the zoning ordinance section or conditions of a
permit approval, within a three (3) year period from the date of
the first violation,%~_t~~t%_t ~~tj~~ ~~_ ~~)~n~~t t~~tj the fee
I
shall be $200.00.
- 31 -
IV. C. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO PROJECT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS, SUBCHAPTER 5
The Main Street Advisory Committee recommends the following
restaurant posting requirement be included in the Project Design
and Development Standards section of the Ordinance. Posting of a
sign, stating maximum number of seats allowed within a
restaurant, will allow members of the public and enforcement
officers to monitor the number of seats allowed within a
restaurant.
Section 9040.42. posting of Seating Requirements in
Restaurants. All restaurants which have 50 or more seats shall
post a sign stating the maximum number of seats allowed in the
establishment by the Conditional Use Permit of the City of Santa
Monica. The sign shall be a minimum of 12 inches by 18 inches
and posted by the entrance and exit of the restaurant.
- 32 -
- ----
IV. D. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO VARIANCES, SUBCHAPTER lOE.
The Main street Advisory Committee recommends the following
changes to the variance portion of the Ordinance. This revision
allows for modification of yard setbacks for relocated structures
that have historic value. It is hoped this revision encourages
the historic nature of Main street and provides an opportunity
for buildings of historic merit to be placed on Main street.
Section 9113.1. Purpose. A variance is intended to permit
variations where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships or
resul ts inconsistent with the general purpose of this chapter
would occur from its strict Ii teral interpretation and
enforcement.
Section. 9113.2. Application. Application for a variance
shall be filed in a manner consistent with the requirements
contained in subchapter 10J, Section 9130.1 through 9130.6.
section 9113.3. Applicability. The Zoning Administrator may
grant a variance from the requirements of this Chapter to:
(a) Permit modification of the minimum lot sizes, minimum
parcel dimensions, and parcel coverage regulations as may be
necessary to secure an appropriate improvement on the parcel.
(b) Permit the reduction of the automobile parking space or
loading space requirements.
(c) In residential districts, permit the addition or
enlargement of an existing building, non-conforming as to yard
setbacks on parcels less than 5,000 square feet, provided that
the addition or enlargement does not exceed 25 per cent (25%) of
the floor area of the existing non-conforming building and
provided that it is not a second floor addition to a structure in
the Rl District.
(d) Permit the modification of fence heights in commercial
and residential districts.
(e) Permit the modification of yard setbacks on irregularly
shaped parcels or parcels where the elevation of the ground at a
point 50 feet from the front parcel line of a lot and midway
between the side parcel lines differs 12 1/2 feet or more from
the curb level.
(f) Permit the modification of yard setbacks in the CM
District for relocated structures that are identified on the
Historical Resources Survey as having a value of 1 through SD or
are determined to be historically significant by the Landmarks
commission. A variance may apply only to the relocated
structure.
- 33 -
- - - - - - - - --- -- - -- - --
IV. E. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 5 AND HEARING NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES
The Main street Advisory Committee recommends the following
change to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) requirements
portion of the Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of site posting for
major projects reviewed by the ARB is to notify surrounding
neighbors of hearing dates.
1. Chapter 5 - Architectural Review
section 9517. posting of Property. Within 10 days after an
application for architectural review for a major project has been
filed, the applicant shall post the property in a manner set
forth by the zoning Administrator.
2. zoning Administrator Guidelines for ARB Posting.
All major projects submitted for Architectural Review Board
approval shall be posted within 10 days after an application is
filed. A maj or proj ect is defined as 15,000 square feet of new
construction or 10,000 square feet of a new addition to an
existing building. The applicant shall submit to the Zoning
Administrator an affidavit verifying that the sign was
continuously posted on the site 14 days or more before the
Architectural Review Board hearing. The sign shall conform to
the following requirements:
1. Size: 2' x 4'
2. Height: Shall not exceed (8) eight feet from ground
level.
3. Location: The sign shall be posted in a conspicuous
place on the property. I f the property is fronted by
more than one street then a sign shall be posted
conspicuously for each street frontage.
4. The sign shall not be illuminated.
5. The sign shall include only the following factual
information:
a) Title: Notice of Hearing
b) Project Case Number
c) Brief Explanation and Description of Project
d) Location of Property
e) Name and Telephone Number of Applicant
- 34 -
---- ----
-- ----- -
- --
f) Date, Time and Location of Public Hearing
g) Planning Division Phone Number and Address
6. The lettering style shall be a standard typeface (Helvetica
or similar). The lettering size shall be 2 inch capital
letters for the title and project case number. All other
letters shall be 1 inch in size and may be either capitals or
upper and lower case. All letters shall be black upon a
white background.
7. In the event that the date of the hearing changes, the
requirements for posting remain in effect from the date of
the new hearing with the appropriate new date to be
incorporated on the sign.
8. Posting Time: The sign shall remain in place until after the
ten (10) day appeal period has passed. If an appeal is
filed, the sign shall remain in place, with the new hearing
date noted, until final decision by the Planning commission.
The sign shall be removed within ten (10) days of either the
end of the appeal period or the final decision of the
Planning Commission, whichever applies.
.
- 35 -
IV.F. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO SUBCHAPTER SE. OFF STREET PARKING
REQUIREMENTS
The Main street Subcommittee recommends the following change to
the off-street parking requirements for restaurants:
Section 9044.4 Number of Parking spaces Required.
Restaurant 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of support area; 1
space per 7S sq. ft. of service and seating
area; and 1 space per 50 sq. ft. of separate
bar area.
40% maximum percent compact spaces allowed
.
- 36 -
v. PROPOSED POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WILL APPLY CITYWIDE
The Main street Advisory Committee identified issues that are not
unique to Main street and are recommended for adoption City-wide.
The following discussion delineates those issues and options for
addressing them.
A. Noise
Loud music and patrons of bars and dance places leaving in a
loud and disorderly manner have been identified as noise
issues to be controlled.
1. Loud Music
The city is currently revising the Noise Element of the
city's General Plan and the Noise Ordinance. Consistent
with the Noise Element, the Noise Ordinance will address
the problem of intruding commercial noise levels, such
as loud music, on adjacent land uses. The Noise Element
and Ordinance will address noise intrusion such as loud
music from commercial uses in two ways:
a) Require new commercial projects built near existing
residential land uses demonstrate compliance with
the City Noise Ordinance prior to approval to the
project. Require that all Building Permit
applicants, including contractors, sign a form
acknowledging requirements of the Noise Ordinance,
and assuming responsibility for compliance with the
Noise Ordinance.
b) Establish a self-monitoring program for commercial
establishments that are continuous problems,
particularly for restaurants or other late-night
entertainment problem areas. The following
describes how that may be achieved:
Develop a process requiring an offending commercial
establishment to install a noise monitoring system.
Such a program could be phased based on history of
violations, i.e., second violation periodic
testing, third violation permanent installed noise
monitoring system, fourth violation recorded
printouts of noise levels, with monthly summaries,
given to City staff for review and verification of
compliance. These phases are described as "Stages"
below which defines the requirement of each stage.
If an establishment has been found in violation of
the noise limits after a neighborhood complaint,
they could be required to install a monitoring
system. The type of system may depend on the
violation history so that repeat violators have to
- 37 -
install more sophisticated systems. The following
stages could be required after one, two, or more
violations (violations of noise limits as measured
by the city or the health Department) or some other
mechanism that could be worked out to trigger a
required monitoring program:
stage 1: The city shall require a program of
random periodic 1 hour measurements
conducted by Ci ty Staff, Heal th
Department, or contract consultant once a
week for 4 weeks. Costs shall be paid by
the operator of the noise source.
Measurements are to be made at residence
of the complainant. If violations are
found, then institute corrective action
and require Stage 2 monitoring.
stage 2: The City shall require the noise source
operator to install an outdoor microphone
at appropriate locations to measure noise
emissions from the establishment. The
maximum level permitted at this location
shall be determined through on site
correlation of noise levels at this
position with the noise levels at the
complainants residence or other worst
case position as determined by the City
staff when the maximum noise level limit
is exceeded. The sound level analyzer
may be set to respond to instantaneous
levels or S minute averages, to be
determined as part of correlation study.
If the complaints persist and a
subsequent Noise Ordinance violation is
found, the City shall require corrective
measures be taken and stage 3 monitoring
instituted.
stage 3: Same as stage 2 but Sound Level Analyzer
shall produce a printed report of hourly
noise levels (or other averaging period
as determined by city Staff) including
Leq, L2, L8, L25, and LSD corresponding
to permitted exceedance times as defined
in the Noise Ordinance or Standard
Condition. At the end of each month the
noise source operation shall supply the
City with a copy of printed noise level
summaries. Alternatively, the City shall
request the data only when the City
receives a complaint. If violations are
identified the CUP should be reviewed by
the City.
- 38 -
2. Loud Patrons
Controlling loud patrons of a commercial establishment
who disturb the adjacent neighborhood does not fall
under the purview of a Zoning ordinance. The Police
Department should be contacted when this occurs.
options for controlling establishments that are likely
to provide services like a dance club or bar that can be
disturbing to the neighborhood are:
a) Prohibit those uses in the District Ordinance.
b) Require a Conditional Use Permit in the District
Ordinance for those uses.
c) Establish performance standards for those
identified uses.
B. Rezoning of Residential properties to commercial
No residential property adjoining the Main Street Commercial
District or any other commercial district within the City
should be rezoned or developed for commercial use.
c. parking PerIni ts
l. A monthly resident parking pass (with decal) for all
public parking facilities should be studied
2 . A resident parking permit program should be developed
for off-peak use of public parking facilities.
D. conditional Use permit/Restaurants
If a Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) is required and granted,
the C.U.P. should include a mandatory periodic review by the
Planning Commission to assure compliance with conditions of
approval.
E. convenience Retail Incentives
Market forces have proven incapable of supplying and/or
maintaining neighborhood oriented businesses in acceptable
numbers. In order to assist the market place, incentives
should be developed by the City to encourage the retention
and development of convenience retail throughout the city.
This program should be incorporated into the city's on-going
effort to promote economic development. For the purposes of
this program convenience retail includes such business as:
Book stores
stationary Shops
Laundry/cleaners
confectionery/Bakery
- 39 -
Dressmaker/Milliner/Tailor
Pharmacy
Dry Goods/Notions
Grocery under 3,000 s.f.
Florist
Hardware/small electronic appliances
Meat market/fruit/vegetable/poultry deli under 3,000 s.f.
Shoe repair
Newsstand
Small appliance repair
Pet shop
Banks
Leqal aid
F. Alcohol Impact Fee
An alcohol impact fee should be developed to fund Police
Department activities associated with alcohol related complaints,
enforcement, and crime.
- 40 -
- -- ---- -- ---
VI. PROPOSED POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS UNI~UE TO MAIN STREET
The Main Street Advisory Committee recommends the following
policies unique to Main street. Implementation of these policies
will ensure a viable commercial district with minimal impact on
the surrounding residential community.
A. on-Going Process
Goal:
Representatives interested in Main street will convene
no less than once a year to discuss issues that relate
to Main street.
The purpose of this on-going Committee is to address future
issues that arise in and around Main street. The majority of
the current Committee members want to continue the dialogue
and understanding that has developed between merchants,
property owners and residents within this Main street
planning process.
Proposed Implementation:
Upon completion of the current ordinance revision and Master
Plan process, the Main street Advisory Committee will select
two CO-Chairs who will be responsible for convening future
Main street Committee meetings.
The co-chairs will select 8 representatives, 4 from the Main
street commercial community and 4 from the Ocean Park
residential community to complete an on-going Committee of 10
members. The Committee will set the guidelines for meeting
dates, future meeting notification procedures and yearly
election of co-chairs.
B. Library Hours
The Ocean Park Branch Library should be open on Sundays with
hours similar to the Main Library.
C. Parking Meter Rates
Meter rates on Main street are higher than other commercial
districts within the City. Public parking meter rates on
Main Street should be lowered in order to equalize all
commercial districts.
D. Preferential parking Zone 2 Hour Daytime Exemption
~
Establish a two hour preferential parking zone on Second and
Third Streets south of pico (and appropriate side streets)
from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. and prohibit parking from 6 p.m. to 2
- 41 -
a.m. except by ,permit. Signage to be improved in design,
placement, size, and number as soon as possible.
E. Non-structural Parking Alternatives
Before a structural parking alternative is proposed by the City,
the Committee strongly urges immediate implementation of the
following non-structural alternatives. Implementation should be
regularly reviewed, and after two years of full implementation,
evaluated by merchants, tenants, and residents.
The Committee recommends that the city Council immediately
direct staff to begin implementation of the following
non-structural parking alternatives:
1. Restripe Lots 9/ 10, and IDA from angled parking to 90
degree parking in order to allow for additional parking
spaces.
2. Move the Hill Street bus line #2 to Ocean Park Blvd. to
allow parking in current no parking zones. Repaint red
curbs to allow parking on Hill street and 4th street.
3. Improve signage to existing parking lots, enforcement of
existing preferential parking and remote employee
parking.
4. Convert the lots behind Main st. (lots 9,10a and 11) to
attendant operated parking. Charge less per hour than
nearby meter rates with validation from a Main st.
business; otherwise, charge more than the beach lot
rates. Implement an hourly charge for the beach lots to
accommodate short term parking.
5. Improve signage at exit and entrance to Lots 9, lOa, and
1l.
6. Establish a committee to review the success of these
alternatives including representatives from:
City Council
Department of Parking and Traffic
Main st. commercial community
Residential community
7. Implement the proposed items all at one time.
a. Monitor, evaluate and fine-tune these alternatives for
two years after full implementation. At the end of this
period, the committee should issue a paper with a total
evaluation of the effectiveness of these alternatives.
~
9. Provide a tram that connects the Main street commercial
area and the south beach.
- 42 -
lOt Identify and designate appropriate locations for the
holding and/or staging of tour buses throughout the
commercial district.
. F. parking and Circulation
The committee recommends implementation of the following
parking and circulation measures to promote a more
pedestrian-oriented street:
a) Limit large truck traffic by weight and axle on Main
street. Prohibit large truck traffic on Fourth street
by posing appropriate signage.
b) The following measures should be studied and
appropriately implemented by staff:
l. Evaluate the sidewalk and light standards on the
east side of Neilson between Kinney and Hollister
to determine if it should be widened or eliminated.
2. Change machines should be conveniently located
throughout the commercial district as soon as
possible.
3 . Main street traffic should be slowed.
4. Exiting from lot 11 should be restricted to
Hollister.
5. In-service and out of service buses should be
restricted from Main street both Santa Monica buses
and RTD bUses.
6. Crosswalks with pedestrian activated flashing red
lights should be installed at Kinney and Main,
mid-block between Ashland and Rill, and at the Main
street entry to lot 11.
c) The following bicycle circulation measures should be
implemented:
l. Clearly mark bicycle paths at Ashland and Bicknell
from the Beach Bike Path to encourage bicyclists to
visit Main street.
2. Provide bike racks in public parking lots between
Main street and Neilson.
3. Improve the transition between the western end of
the Ashland Bikeway and the Beach Bike Path.
- 43 -
--- --- - -
G. Filminq on Main street
No public parking within the Main street commercial District
shall be used by Film crews between Memorial Day and Labor .
Day.
Use of residential street parking by film crews in the
residential districts adjoining Main street is prohibited.
In addition, traffic diverted off of Main street as the
result of filming should not be re-directed into the
residential district, traffic should be diverted to
commercial streets.
~
- 44 -
-- ------- ---
VII. AESTHETICS AND AMBIANCE
The Main Street Advisory Committee has established goals and
objectives to unify the Main Street Commercial District and set
forth an urban design concept and vision. The vision for Main
street is a pedestrian oriented village, neighborhood oriented
commercial district designed to be a homogeneous component of the
neighborhood that facilitates pedestrian as well as vehicular
traffic.
The portion of the district south of Ocean Park Boulevard
possesses historic and architecturally significant buildings and
therefore should be considered for historic district designation.
A. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Main street Committee recommends that a consultant be
retained to assist in a community process to develop Design
Guidelines for the Main street Commercial District. The design
guidelines would achieve the following obj ecti ves through the
implementation of the short and long term goals:
a) Create a pedestrian friendly "village-like" atmosphere
with a mix of uses that is a pleasant place to be, while
allowing for and promoting the economic success of the
commercial district.
b) In order to create a "village-likeu atmosphere on Main
street, Design Guidelines should address the issues of
pedestrian traffic and orientation, architectural detail
and scale, human scale, sidewalk and street widths,
noise control, trash enclosures, roof-top design, street
furniture, lighting, planting, signage, open space, and
parks.
B. SHORT TERM GOALS
Implementation of short term goals is recommended in one year
following completion of Design Guidelines.
1. signage:
Encourage human scale signage when developing sign
standards.
a) Allow projecting signs but restrict them to no more than
3 feet in any dimension and upto a maximum of 4.5 square
feet. Restrict projecting signage to "natural"
materials --wood, metal, not plastic and not
illuminated.
b) Allow sandwich boards on private property only if they
are not more than 8 square feet on any face and no more
- 45 -
than 48 inches high and where no project~ signage
occurs.
2/ Design Guidelines
Initiate the process to establish Design Guidelir _ for Main
street in FY 91-92.
c. LONG TERM GOALS
Implementation of long term goals is recommended within five
years of the completion of Design Guidelines.
1. Historic District Designation
Initiate the process for designation of the southern portion
of Main street as a historic district. The blocks south of
Ocean Park Boulevard to the south City limit. and including
the Ocean Park Library and the Merle Norman Building just
north of Ocean Park Boulevard, would define the district
boundary.
Process:
A consultant would be hired upon City council direction to
prepare the application which must include an inventory of
structures within the proposed district and historical
background of the area and environs.
Designation Process:
Designation of a Historic District is a multi-step process.
Following filing of a Historic District application, the
Landmarks Commission must first conduct a Pre 1 iminary
Evaluation, hold a public hearing on the application and
recommend to City Council on whether the application merits
designation. The City Council, in a separate public hearing,
will make the final determination.
Should the City Council determine the area merits historic
district designation it will be approved by ordinance. The
ordinance will set forth the specific regulations,
incentives, procedures, and any restrictions governing the
modification or demolition of structures within the district,
and review procedures for the alteration or demolition of a
contributing structure.
2. streetscape Improvements:
a) Develop a graphic/signage program for both directional
and public signage that is uniquely detailed for Main
street.
b) - Improve landscaping on Main street to include a variety
of trees, lacy in nature rather than thick and dense,
which can possibly assume lights at festival time.
- 46 -
--- ----
c) Develop appropriate gateways at both Marine and Pico
which signify the entrance to Main street.
d) Develop a distinctive lighting pattern and fixture that
would be repeated along Main Street which would be more
in scale to pedestrians and in keeping with the
architecture south of Ocean Park. Lighting fixtures
should improve the lighting level at the street, and be
solar if possible.
e) 1) The intersections of Ocean Park and Main street and
pico and Main street should be identified with a
separate paving pattern clearly outlining their
pedestrian friendly nature and role as the most
prominent intersections on Main street.
Additionally, all intersections within the district
should have a paving treatment to unify the
district and promote the pedestrian use and feel of
Main street.
2) Encourage the continuation of the island that runs
from Neilson and Barnard Way and extend it eastward
to 2nd street.
3) Develop a logo to be incorporated into the design
of intersections with some historical flavor or
significance.
f) Consider the use of banners appropriate and unique to
Main street - these should be colorful and seasonal.
g) Develop improvements to the alley west of Main street
between Kinney and Hill streets to make it pedestrian
friendly.
h) Identify and encourage pedestrian walk-throughs between
Main street and the public parking facilities.
i) Remove all utility poles and provide all power and
utilities underground.
j) Encourage open space plans for projects on sites with
frontage in excess of 50'0" on Main street and consider
options such as trade-offs as a percentage of setbacks.
3. parkinq and circulation:
Implementation of a pedestrian oriented village requires
major changes to the current Main street configuration and
circulation pattern. In order to encourage and promote
pedestrian use on Main street the Committee recommends the
widening of Main street sidewalks to include a unified
paving treatment along sidewalks, at intersections, and all
crosswalks. .
The Committee recommends the reduction of Main street to one
lane each way in an effort to slow down Main street traffic
- 47 -
- -- - -
- - - - - --- --
and recommends incorporating landscaping into any street
improvements.
4. Open Space/community Gardens site Community Design Process:
The Community Gardens site at Hollister and Main street
provides needed open space to the commercial and surrounding
residential districts. Currently, however, the site is not
available to all members of the public and is subdivided into
approximately 40 garden plots.
As part of the proposed design guidelines process the
Committee recommends that a public workshop be conducted to
discuss the use of the site. various alternatives should be
considered. Including maintaining the site. The public
discussion should include as a long range goal providing for
open space on Main street.
D. DESIGN GUIDELINE PROCESS
The following process is recommended to develop the Main street
Design Guidelines:
a) City council approval and initiation of the process to
develop the Main street Design Guidelines and budget
objective for FY 91/92.
b) City council approval of work scope utilizing the Main
street Advisory committee's recommended objectives,
goals and implementation measures.
c) City council approval of public process to include
scoping meetings with Main Street business and
residential community.
d) Consultant selected and money appropriated by City
Council. The consultant selection committee shall
include a member of the Main street On-going Committee.
w/mainplan
, .
- 48 -
----------
- -- - - ---- --- ---- -
.
ADDENDUM I ISSUES NOT APPROVED BY A CONSENSUS VOTE
w"hile virtually all the recommendations presented in the Main
street Plan we.:-e approved by consensus, there was one issue the
co~~ittee did not receive a consensus vote and recommendation.
, Development Standards for the eM4 District.
-.
Currently, development standards for the CM4 district allC".oJ'
four stories, 47' 0" high development with a 2.5 FAR.
'!~e Committee considered four alternatives to addressing
development standards in the CM4 district. However, none
could obtain a consensus vote. The alternatives are:
0 AlloW four story, 47' high development with a 2.5 FAR,
as noted in the current Zoning Ordinance. .
0 Change CM4 standards to 3 stories 35' Z.O FAR and allow
four story, 471 high development with a 2.5 FAR provided
all the following conditions are met:
a. The fourth floor does not exceed more than 50
percent of the third floor footprint.
b. The fourth floor is set back a minimum of 10 feet
from the third floor street frontage(s).
c. The fourth floor is set back a minimum of 5 feet
from the third floor side and rear yard building
frontage.
d. T~~ fourth floor setback at the stre&' f.contage is
devoted to a roof garden or unenclosed terrace.
e. The development includes residential uses equal to
or exceeding the floor area of the fourth floor.
f. The front yard setback at the g~ound floor level is
doubled.
o. Same as #2, but amend condition "e" to require that
one-third of residential units be affordable.
0 Eliminate CM4 District.
Yl/cmvote
- 1 -
-
co
I-
-
co
-
I
X
w
- --------- - ------ - -- ---
. ,
.. ,
.
.
.
.
MAIN STREET MASTER PLAN:
A COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM FOR
FUTURE lAND USE
.
AND DEVELOPMENT
.
PREPARED BY
THE ~AIN STREET PLANNING GROUP,
RE?RESENTING Tri=:
1".AW STREIT ASSOCIATION .
AND THE
CCE~N PARK COMMUNiTY ORGANIL~TrON
. .
JUNE 6~ 1980
- ~ .. . . -
. .
. . .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUcrION .. . II' .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. .. . 1
II. ~AIN STREET SPECIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND .
A NEW ZONING CLASSIFICATION
A. Statement of Intent ...........~...... 2
B. Location _ .. .. . . .. .. . . . . .. .. . . .. . .. . .. 3
C. Us es . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . ~ ~ . . . . . . 3
D. Property Development Standards . . . . . . . . . 6
E. Parking .......................... 9
F. Noise .......................... 9
.
G. Grandfather Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
I: I. PARKI~G AND CIRCULATlO~ ?ROGrtA~
~ Parkl ng 11
.~. .. .. .. .. 'III .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
3. Clrculatlon ...................... 14
i' t OPEN SPACE ' ~
.. ~ . .. .... ...... ....... .... 'III.. .0
'J. GUIDELINES FOR ARC~rTECTURAL REVIER BOARD ~hE~
REVI8~ING ~AI~ STREET SPECIAL COMMERC:~L
DISjRICT BUILDI~G PROJECTS ............. 17
VI. RECOMMENDATION TO THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION
REGAROIUG MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL AREA . . . . . . . . 18
vII. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CITY-WIDE
ADOPTION ........................... 19
,
. .
. .
.
.
.
I. INTRODUCTION
~
This Master Plan for future land use and development on Main Street
has been prepared through the cooperative efforts of the respective
Main Street delegations of the Ocean Park Ccmmunity Organization, a
residential community organization) and the Main Street Association)
an association of Main Str~et merchant and prop~rty owners interests. ~
Collectively) these delegations have beccme t,e Maln Street Planning
Group WhlCh has worked contlnuously ~lth representatives of the City
Manager's Office) City Attorneyls Office) Depart~e~t of ~nviror.ffie~tal
Services, and DeDart~ent of Ccmmunl~y Services to insure that t,iS
:lan has been developed in a manner conslstent wlth the City's eXistlng
Joerational context as mandated by the City Cour.c~l .n its 1mOosit,on
of the Maln Street Moratorlum.
~
~1'S plan 1S ccmprene~Sive ,n nature and accresses itself to vir~~al1y
~very facet of land use and development on Ma~n Stree:. yet remains a
:.ghtly negotiated settlement betwee~ ~~O ccnst.tue~Cles whose mexbe--
ships represe~t tne full spectrum of obJectives, ~r10rities, and interests
many of WhlCh were not always congruent. As such) th15 plan 1$ a fragile
entlty.
_ 1 _
.
.
. . . . .
.
II. MAIN STREET SPECIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
A. STATEMENT OF INTENT
.
<
Whereas it is recognized that the Main Street commercial district is not
simply a Neighborhood Commercial Area or Highway Commercial Zone, nor
is it a Downtown Central Business District; and
Whereas it is recognized that the Main Street commercial distriet has
historically accommodated a variety of uses, including ccmmercial
uses which have provlded daily necesslties. places of ~oloyment.
and lelsure time opportunlties for those living in the surrounding
communlty and t,e greater Santa Monica area, as well as the area's
1arse numbe~ of tourls:s. and .
~hereas It lS recognlzed that the Maln Street commercial dlstrlct 1S in
dlrec: prOXlmlty to adjoIn,ng reSlaentlal nelghbornoods or hi~h de~slty
-
but prlnclpally low to moderate scale, and as a coas~al commerclal area
alSO adJolns Dopular be~c~ recreatlon areas wnlch regularly ge~era:e a
subs:an:~al tranSlent ,nflux, and
~,he~eas ,t lS recognized t~at ~ fi~ancially successful busi~ess distr1c~ is
a valuable and sometimes iragile entlty;
The Maln Street SpeCial Co~erclal Dlstrlct 15 establlshed to encourage phYSical
improvements of low to moderate scale which wl11 contlnue to be co~patlble
with nearby commercial ar.d reSidential uses and to encourage a varl~ty
of commercial and reSidential uses whicn will provide a balanced supoly
of goods and services conslstent With the hlstor1cal pattern.
~
. - 2 -
- - . - . .
. 8 . .
. . .. . . . . . .
. .
MAIN STREET SPECIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
.
1. Location of special district
A. Main Street and commercially zoned or used parcels on related side
.
streets - Marine, Kinney, Pier, Ashland, Hill, Ocean Park Boulevard,
Norman, Hollister, Strand, Pacific, Bic~nell, and Bay -- from Pica
Boulevard to the South City limits, as shown an the map attached
hereto a~d as inclueed in the Main Street Moratorium area.
I I ~ Uses
~ Unregulated uses
1""'.
, Retail stores, bank, laundry, laur.drcr.at, cress~ake~, del1-
..
ca:essen, drug store. florlst. off1ces, Jl~mDing shop. antlque
shop. bakery, ice cream store (retall ,c: cream only, no seatIng).
.
flower a!ld plal1t nursery, repair shoos 7::;r household eculpmer:t,
uoholsterers shop, theaters and auditQr~~",s with iess than 75
seats, pet store/taxide~lst, pr,nt or p~J~~Shlr.g shoo, gymnaslu~,
~edical and dental clin1cs or laboratcries, ~1{e shops, f:ed or
ruel stores, film exchange or developln;, secJr,d nand stores,
wholesa1e stores where public 1S invitee.
2. Residential uses above the ground floor.
3. Other uses as the Zoning Adminlstratlon ~ay fine to be slm,lar
to those"listed above and not more obnoxlous to surrounding
property.
6. Regulated uses
~
. Restaurants with less than 50 seats are llmited to two restaurants
.t.
per block (a block being both sides of Maln Street and the adjac2~t
- 3 -
. .
l
I
-
sides of adjoining side streets -- portions of Main Street
to be designated "blocksll for the purpose of this section
are: block 1 - south ci~J limits to Marine; block 2 - Marine
-
to Pier; block 3 - Pier to Ashland; block 4 - Ashland to Hill;
block 5 - Hill to Ocean Park; block 6 - Ocean Park to Hollister;
.
block 7 - Holllster to Strand; block 8 - Strand to Pacific;
block 9 - Pacific to Bicknell; block 10 - Bicknell to Bay;
block 11 - Bay to Pica). Restaurants with more than 50 seats~
restaurants with a substantlal take-out business~ and any second
floor restaurant use will requ1re a Conditional Use Perilii~
(restaurants are defined as establishments serving a varie~j
of unoackaged foods prepared on-site for consumption).
2. Bars may.net exceed 7 1" number south of Ocean Park Soulevard .
10r 5 in number north of Ocean Park Boulevard. No bars shalT be
located on any Main Street cor~ers. (For the pur~oses of this
section bars shall be defined as establ1shments W1t~ "publ1c
prem ses II 11 quor 11 censes and res taurant5 Wl th a 11 q uor se"'V1 ng
facl11ty which is physlcally seoarate from the d1n1ng area, and
1S regularly operated during hours not corresponding to food
service hours.) Conditional Use Permits required for all bars. -
3. Hotels or hostels are restr1cted to Main Street north of Bay and
requlre a Conditional Use Permit.
4
- <l -
. .
. . . - . . .. . . . -
.
4. Conditional Use Pernrits are also required for the following uses:
Theaters or auditoriums with more than 75 seats; liquor stores .
with more than 50: of tbe display area devoted to alcoholic
beverages; auto repair; any single occupancy or single contiguous
.
integrated use in excess of 8,600 square feet of floor area; any
single occupancy or contiguous integrated use in excess of 75 fee~
of ground floor Main Street frontage; caterlng buslnesses; bUSlness
colleges; mUS1C conservatories and instructlon; trade schools; Sign
paintlng; any existing use wnlch wishes to add regularly scheduled
entertainment for which there would be ,nadecuate narking, restaurants,
as specified above; bars.
:i. Other use restr;ct1ons .
a. Ground floor uses must be "public lnv,ted" uses.
b. Ground floor reta,l or restaurant uses ~ay exte~d to a
mezzanlne-level not exceed,ng 4C~ or g,ound floor area.
c. ;ny second floor retall uses mus: :e C8~rr.unl~Y orle~t2d.
. ("Communlty onented" for the pur:Joses of thiS sect,on
shall be defined as those uses which prov,de ccmmerclal
goods likely to be consumed on a regular basis ,n the
normal life of the adJolnlng communlty).
C. Prohibited uses
l. Drive-ln or dr,ve-through uses, sex-orlented uses, billiard
" parlors and pool halls, bowling alleys, game arcades, bill-
boards.
2. Bars above ground floor, restaurants or retal1 above the
second floor.
3. No second floor restaurant will be permitted an a site where
- 5 -
. -. . .. . . . . - .
.
. . .. .
.
-
there is an existing restaurant.
4. Motels
III. Property development standards
.
A. Building height
l. Maximum height of ~~o-storles, 27 feet, is allowed on the east
slde of Main Street from Bay Street to Pier Avenue, the west
side of Main Street from Strand to Pier~ and related side streets.
2. Maximum helght of three storles, 35 feet, 1S allowed on the east
side of Main Street from Bay north to the southern boundary of
tax parcel 25, and on the west side of Main Street frem Bay to
Strand, and related side streets.
'l Maximum helght of four stories, ~7 feet, is allowed on both sides
...;.
. .
- of Main Street from Pier to the sout~ city limlts, on the wes~
.
side of Main Street from cay to PleD and on the east side of
~aln from tax parcels 24 and 25 north to PieD.
<+. For the purposes of thlS s2ctlon helght limlts shall mean
maX1mum roof he1ght as deflned by t,e city zoning ordinance,
excludlng parapets, mechanlcal houslngs, and other appurte~ant
roof top structures or penetrations such as skylights~ stairwells,
ventilatlon atria, and other archltectural ame~ities intended to
to distinguish the overall design, but WhlCh do not tend to obscure
the intended helght limits.
8. Setbacks
"
l. Front yards
a. iwo-stary district
- 6-
. .
. . .
.
(1) . East side requires a ground floor setback equal .
to 3: of the total site area~ in any configuration
not less than 8' wide.
(2). West side requires a setback equal to 3~ of the
total site area multiplied by the number of floors
of the structure~ in any configuration on.any floor .
or floors provided the ground floor setback is not
less than 3: of site area and is not less than 8' wide.
b. Three-story and four-story districts
( 1) . Same as III 8 1 a (2), (west side of ~No-s~ory
district. )
c. For the purposes of thlS provlsion drlveways shall not be
computed 1n front yard setbacks except that portlon of the
drlveway forward of the foremost bUllding line whe~ treated
1" an aesthetic manner slmilar or lde~tical to the reT.ainder
of the front yard setback area.
Z. Rear yards
a. Two-story distrlct
( 1 ) . East side requlres no ground floor setbac~. Where
rear of structure is wlthin 5' of adjo1ning reslde~tlal
property rear line of ground floor roof may not exceed
9' in height and rear wall must have no window, door,
or ventilation openings that permit vlsual access to
adjoining resldential property. Second floor requires
a 25' setback. NO portion of the first floor roof within
15' of the rear property line may be used for any purpose
other than maintenance and repair. The next for~ard 10'
- 7 -
. . . . .. .
. . .
,
,.
.
.
may be privately used (not open to the public) if
enclosed with a solid 61 barrier and window design
prevents visual intrusion of adjoining residential
property. Except there shall be no rear yard set-
backs required where existing parking improvements and
. common ownership extend through to Second Street.
(2). West side requires no ground floor setback. Where
rear of structure is within 5' of rear property line
ground floor roof height shall not exceed 9'. Second
fioor ~ust maintaln a 7.5' set~ack.
b. Tnree-5~ary distrlc~
( 1) . Same as west slde of VHo-story dlstrlct for 1st and
bd fleors.
(2) . Third floer must ~aln!ain a 15' setbac~.
c. Four-story district
~o re~r yard setbacks required.
~. S 1C~e yardS
There shall be no slde yard setback requlreTents.
, ~aximum buildable area
".
Other sections of this Chapter not~ithstanding, the total adjustad
floor area of any building constructed in this district shall not
exceed three and three-tenths (3.3) times the horizontal area of the
commerciaily zoned lot or lots except that buildings in excess of thlS
limitpt10n may be permitted by the issuance of a Condit1onal Use Pe~it
- 8-
-
. .
.
.
.
under the provisions of Section 9148 on the basis of an
environmental and fiscal analysis satisfactorily demonstrating
that no significant adverse environmental or fiscal impacts
will occur as a-result of the increased floor area. For
purposes of computing floor area, multi-residential units
devoted strictly to apartment residential uses shall be
computed at one-half(1/2) the actual total adjusted floor
area, and areas devoted to parklng structures below the first
floor level shall be excluded. OFirst floor levelH means the
floor above the basement as defined in Section 9102 of the
Munlcipal Code.
r/. Par~ing
A. As much as 30~ of any requlred par~lng may be designed for
compact-sized vehlcles~ and in str~ctures housing mixed
.
commercial and residential uses, parXlng above the firs:
floor shall be allowed.
, . NOlse
A. AcoustlC controls for establlshme~~s ~lt, Ilve ampllfled
entertainment or other laud mUS1C.
1. Exte~ior wall and window construc~10n nust be to a
minimum STC rating of 45, as det~rmlned by the AST~
or other simllar accepted industry standard.
2. EAterior doors and doorways
a. Doors must be solid core or mineral filled.
~ b. Doors must be gasketed to provlde a seal at head.
sill, and jamb.
- 9 -
. . . . .-
.
.
c. Main entrance must contain an "acoustic lockll
or other equivalent usound trap.1I
3. The intent of this section is to require an establishment
providing entertainment or loud music to contain the re-
sulting noise within its walls to the greatest extent
possible.
VI. Grandfather Clause
NO~~lthstanding specific references contained herein, the provisions
of this ordinance are not meant to apply to current uses, regaraless
of changes of ownership, unless the existing use is intens1f1ed by a
floor area addition of more tban 15~, or by other substant1al 1ntensi-
fication even as the introduct1on of regularly scheduled entertainment.
except that there ~ay be no ~re than an incidental 1ncrease 1n the
serVlce-area floor space of bars and restaurants, nor to changes ln
-
use Wh1Ch result in an unrestricted use under this code that 1S less
lntense than the curre~t use. A current use shall be considered no
longer eXlstentif that use 1S voluntarlly changed or 1S abandoned for
a per10d of one year.
.
"
- 10 -
----
. . . . .
" .
.
PARKING AND CIRCULATION
The following parking and circulation progr~ is intended to
expand the capacitj of public and private parking facilities servi~g the
Main Street Special Commercial District, improve the efficiency with which
- those facilities are utilized, ;mproJe the separation of corrmercial and
resldential parking and circulation activities, and enhance the movement
~f automobile traffic on Main Streett all while formally introducing and
encourag1n9 further development of other modes of transportation to the
J1strict.
- DIl RKING
. .
, Establ1sh preferentlal parklng distrlct(s) 1n the resldentlal areas
1""\.
adJolning Main Street. -
-
B. Encourage efficlent use of public and private parklng facllities so
that a maximum proportion of existlng and future capacity is ava11able
durlng daytlm~~- evening, and nighttlme hours through tre week in such
a manner as to aVOld undue narcshlp upon adJoln1ng oropertles.
C. Allows 30: of new parking capaclty to be ceslgned for ccmoact-s.:e
vehicles.
D. Implement a pi 1 at park-and-ri de system to move erno 1 oyees. pa trans. ar.d
visitors from consolidated off-site parking stations to and through
the Main Street area. As a continuation of thlS planning process,
a jOlnt citizens/City staff committee shall be formed to conduct an
analysis of vehicle modes. routes, hours of operation, available
parklng stations, and financial operatlons for presentation with
recommendations to the City.
-11 -
.
-
.4
.
E. Implement an in-lieu parking system in which new development would
be permitted to transfer its parking obligations to off-site
locations where new capacity would be developed and financed
through developer fees and/or an assessment district incorporating
all or part of the Main Street Special Commercial District.
Developed in-lieu capaclty would be available to individual property
owners on the basis of the following distribution formula llmlting
the number of parking spaces potentially allowable to each property
owner accordlng to site size:
Parcel Size in Sa. ft. Maximum No. of In-Lleu Soaces A1lcwed
less than 2,000 10
2,001 - 3,500 18
3,501 - 5,000 25
5.001 - 7,500 . 33
7,501 - 10,000 38
10,001 - 15,000 50% on-site 40
mor~ than 15,000 50~ on-slte 40 + 5/each added
5,OaO SG. ft.
ThlS program does not constitute a ccmmitw.ent to prcvlde add,t,onal
In-lieu capacity should demand exceed supply. !n~2nslficatlon or
existing uses which would require C.U.P. and which do not have adeq~at:
parking presently must provide parking for the entire use (existing +
new) if in-lieu systa~ to be used. As a cont1nuation of this planning
process, a joint citizens/City staff committee shall be formed to
ident1fy and evaluate alternative methods of establishing and operat1ng
, this in lieu system for presentation with recommendations to the City.
- 12 -
- -- ---
. . . . . . .
.
I
F. Permrtt the development of one parking structure within or adjoining
the main Street Special Commercial District on either~ but not both~
of two locations sUbject to the conditions su~rized below.
Selection of one of these sites is to be based on a comprehensive
feasibility analysis to be conducted by the City considering parking
efficiency and need~ circulation and access, environmental impacts,
and financial feasibility, and in the case of the northern location
shall include an evaluatlon of the suitability of the site to which
the gardens would be relocated for that use. As a continu~t;on of
thlS planning process, a JOlnt citizens/City staff committee sha11
be convened to partlc1pate in design development, select nelghbcr-
heed or1ented tenants, etc.
1. Southern Locatlon: ~eilson Way parking lots be~~een Hill
and Kinney Streets.
a. Helght app~oximately eaual to height of existing adjOining
Maln Street structures.
b. Structural and landscape design to Dlace hlgh prioritIes
on efficient, functional use, attractive vlsual aesthe:ics
fitting the Main Street context, and cnme prevention.
2. Northern location: Community Gardens bebveen Holllster and
Strand~ Main and Neilson.
.
a. Relocate gardens to lot 11 south of Hollister on new-to-
existing plot ratio of 2 to 1, this land to be available
for garden plots and/or public park land to be determlned.
, Relocation to occur during juncture in growing seasons, and
to include provision of topsoil or suitable soil amendments.
- 13 -
- . .
. .
.
b. Height to comply with two-story district regulation
(27 feet).
c. Ground floor Main Street frontage to depth of 50 feet and
height of approximately 15 feet to be improved to house
neighborhood-oriented commercial uses and/or community
center facilities. Finlsh improvements of this space shall
be undertaken by the City or the City ln conJunction with
others, though the parking structure developer shall have
the option of improving this space for the deslgnated uses
at its own expense should ather entities be unwilling to co
so. The ground floor area in question may be used for par~lng
purposes until it 1S improved for intended uses.
d. Structural a~d lcndscape design to place hlgh prlorlt12s .
on efficient, functional use, attractive visual aesthetics
fitting the Mal" Street context, and crlme prevention.
G. Work 1n cooperation wlth the Santa Monica Municipal Bus Lines to
encourage alternatlve modes of travel to and frem the Main Street
area.
II. CIRCULATION
A. Relocate existing traffic signal at Pier and Maln to Marine and ~ain
Street.
B. Add new traffic signal at Ashland Avenue and Main Street.
C. Coord1nate Main Street signal sequencing to enforce speed limit.
,
D. Route bike lands along Main Street lnterconnected with the beach
blke path via Marine/Barnard~ Pico, and/or other laterals.
_ 14 -
~
. .
. - .
.
.
OPEN SPACE
.
-
.
I. POCKEr PARK
. .
Convert the Kinney Street right~of-way from Main Street west to the
.
alley into a pocket park featuring open lawn area and other appropriate
.
. landscaping.
II. TOWN SQUAR:
Convert the Ashland Avenue right-af-way from Mdln Street west to alley
into a pocket park using a ta~n square format with public restrocms,
drinking fountains, and other coprooriate improv~T.ents.
.
III. PARK AT P,J,CIFIC MID :.tAHl
Encourage additional improverr.ents to this axisting par~ such as -
-
restrooms and sitting faci1i~ies. .
IV. Encourage City acquisitlon OT Addltional open space along Main Street.
. .
.
-
~
- 16 - .
.
.
E. locate bike parking facilities within the Main Street Special
.
Commercial District on such public properties as the existing
proposed parks, libFary, Eommunity gardens, parking structure,
and on such private properties as their owners are willing.
F. Promote periodic closure of Main Street to vehicular traffic
for special public events.
.
-
..
.
"
_ 15 _
. . ". .
.
~
. -
6UIDaINES FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD WHEN
REVIEWING MAIN STREET SPECIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
BUILDING PROJECTS
The Architectural Review Board should:
I. Encourage design which, through the use of setbacks, patios, walkways, display
areas, street furniture, lighting, planting, and other elements, promotes a
pedestrian street character and encourages pedstria involvement with the
structure, the street, and other pedestrians.
2. Encourage indivi~uality and creativity in architectural deslgn.
~
3. Encourage deslgn which maxlmizes the use of "alternative" renewable energy
sources~ and mlnlmizes dependence on non-renewable energy, lncludlng the use
of natural'lightlng, ventilation, heatlng, and cooling.
J Encourage design which pays special attention to landscaoing around the bUllding
per'~eter and on-site parklng areas, and in other ways enhances the bUlldlng
aesthetics.
~ - E~:ourage deslgn which pays attention to all publicly visible bUllding surfaces.
'J " ~~courage s~ructures that by their design and construction protect occupants
from exceSSlve street nOlse.
7. Encourage slgnage that is in keeping wlth the deslgn, scale, and character 0;
the bUl1ding on which it is placed.
8. Encourage minimum curb cuts, with speclal attention to Maln Street frontage.
9. Restrlct ltS review of Main Street structures to the above 11sted consideratlons.
.
_ 17
. .
RECOMMENDATION TO LANDMARKS COMMISSION
REGARDING MAIN STREET COfottERCIAl AREA
It is our interest to maintain the architectural characteristics and scale
. of the Main Street comrnercia1 area. Some Main Street structures may be
qualified for designation as individual landmarks under the guidelines of
the lanomarks Commission and there may be some danger that these structures
may be altered 1n a way that might lessen thelr signlficance. We therefore
request that your Comm1ttee 1mmediately beg1n a careful and 1ntens1ve survey
of structures 1n the Main Street commercial area w1th the alm of pr2servlng
ar.y such s~ructures as soon as possiole.
.
. .
.
_ 18 _
- . .
...
. .
-
,
.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
FOR CITY-WIDE ADOPTION
.
We strongl~ recommend:
I- ...the adoption of the new, more r~strictive sign ordinance n~N under study
by the City staff.
II. ...the adoption by the ARB of guidelines for all structures under its review
that will encourage design whi ch maximizes the use of lIa 1 ternative" rene'..,able
energy sources and minimizes dependence on non-reQewable energy. including
the use of natural lighting, vent11ation. heating. and cool1ng.
II: _ ...the City keep pace with State recomw.endatlons regarding energy. and develop
a comorehensive energy policy.
I" ...no demolitlon of eX1sting commercial structures be perm1tted until a
. -
replacement structure has received conceptual approval from the Archltectural
Review Board.
V. ...deslgnation of a new coastal area PubllC lands District (P) for all publicly
owned property. includjng Parking Authority. garden, museu~, library and par~
faclllties, WhlCh prohlbits new schools. ma'ntena~ce yareSt or admlnistrative
facilIties. 1n the City's coastaT zone.
\/I. ...parking requirements for bars be increased to 1 space per each three persons
or allowable building occupancy or one space per each 75 sauare feet of gross
floor area, whichever is greater. as recommended by the City Traffic Engineer.
VII. C1ty staff be directed to immediately draft a more restrictive and more easily
enforced noise ordinance. incorporat1ng a nuisance abatement procedure.
VII ~. ...operators of bars. restaurants and other likely offenders of the City's
>
existing noise ordinance should be lnrormed of the provisions of the ordinance
and pOSSible penalties for its violation; and that the City Council direct the
oolice department and other city agencies to make every effort at timely response
to complaints of noise violations; and that existing penaltles be enforced for
_ 19 _
.
. -
h !
.
t
~
chronic offenders of the ordinance.
IX. ...the creation of an annual $ls000.00 license fee for all "on-sale"
liquor licensess with the fee revenue to be specifically eanmarked to
finance ;n~reased enforcement of noise and nuisance complaints associated
with bars and restaurants.
x. ...the adoption of archltectural construction standards similar or
identical to those contained in the proposed Main Street Special Commercial
District for the control af noise at establishments that provide e~tertain-
ment or loud music.
v- ...the expanslon of the current public notlfication procedures for public
'- .
hearlngs held relative to discretlonary permlt applications, as attached.
,-- ...an lncrease 1n the current enforcement and pe~alty provlsions of the
"--+
Munlcipai Code, as attached.
-
".
.
.
~
- 20 -
.
. .
.
:
-
AN AMENDED NOTICE PROCEDURE
A. NOTICE OF FILING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS
1. The Building Officer shall once a week, in a conspicuous place in
his office, post a list of all permits for which he has re~eived
an application for work to be done, in whole or in part.
2. In addition to posting the list required by section (1), the
Building Officer shall mail a copy of said list to any person,
group, or other entity residing in, or whose place of business is
within the City which has requested copies of the list.
~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
.:}.
~ . The Manner of Giving Notice
NO~N1thstanding any other prov1sion of the Code to the contrary,
whenever notice of p~blic hearing is requ1red by this Code. or
regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, not1ce of any hear1ng
concerning property in the City of Santa Mon1ca shall be given
as follows:
a. The applicant- shall post 1n a consp1cuoUS olace, upon the
slte of the proposed project at least fifteen (15) days
before the hearing takes place and file w1th the Department
of Plann1ng and Zoning a declarat10n under penalty of pe~Jury
.
that the notice has been posted; and
0. The applicant, not later than seventeen (17) days before any
hearing shall provide the Department of Planning and Zoning
w1th mailing labels addressed to all owners of record, residents,
tenants, or business occupants af all real property within five
hundred (500) feet of the boundaries of the lot which is the
,
subject of the hearing at the t1me the application if filed.
_ 71 _
-
.
~
-
If the application ;s for a conditional use permit, or within three
,
hundred (300) feet if the application is for a variance.
In addition~ the applicant shall provide mailing labels for all
persons, groups, or other entities that have requested that the
Building Officer supply them with notice of applications for permits.
c. The Depart~ent of Planning and Zoning shall mail the notices of
hearing no later than the fifteenth (15th) day before the hearing
to those persons speclfied in section (b) and cause notice of the
hearing to be published in a paper of general clrculatian in the
City of Santa Manlca at least once a week.
d. Fallure of the apolicant to comoly wlth the notlce requlreme~ts
shall deprlve the agency haldlng the hearlng of subject ~atter
juriSdiction and make the decision or that body void.
2. Content of Notlce
~Iatwithstandlng any prpV1Slon or t~lS Code to the contracy. tne not1ce
requ1red to be glven by sectlon (b) shall be an a form provlded by the
~epar~~ent of Plann1ng and Zoning and shall con~aln the following:
a. A brief descrlptlon of the proposed project wh1cn 1S the subJect
of the hearing~ and
.
The time, date, and location of the hearing, and .
b.
c. The place where members of the general public may inspect the plans
Wh1Ch accomoany the permit and any staff reports~ and
d. The body to which an appeal may be taken and the tlme limit with-
~
in which to appeal~ and
,
_ 22 _
- -
.~-
. -
...
.
e. If the hearing is before the Architectural Review Board, the
posted notice shall contain a copy of a rendering or other
graphic representation suitable to advise the general public
how the proposed project will look, and notice that such
rendering is also on file in City Hall.
.
~
_ 23 _
. . .
-
..
..
-! .
... .... ..,...
"
Because of the increasing number of both major and mnnor developments and
architectural alterations which are being undertaken without sufficient
regard for zoning and notification regulations and requirements. it is our
feeling enforcement and penal~ provisions of the Municipal Code should be
strengthened. Following is our version of a relatively stringent enforcement
amendment we are willing to abide by. We recognize, however, that staff may
have some difficulty supporting a measure thlS strict. Therefore we wish to
make it clear that we strongly recommend an increase in enforcement and
penalty provisions, whether in the form we've outlined below, or sow~ other
form the City Councll may find more suitable.
Amended Enforcement and Penalty ~rovisions 1n the Munlcipal
Code
A. Any person may maintain an action to enforce the duties imposed
on the Clty or its agencies to enforce these and other provisions
of this code.
B. Any person may maintain an action for the recovery of CiVil
penalties provided herein.
C. Any person may maintain an actlon for declaratory and equitahle
relief to restrain any violations of this division.
D. In addition to the penalties provided by section 1200 of the
Municipal Cade, the following civil penalties are applicable:
. Any perso~ who intentionally violates any provision of
1.
this division shall be subject to a civil fine not to
exceed $10,000.
~2 . In addition to any ather penalties, any person who inta~tional'y
and knowingly performs any development in violation of this
code shall be subject to a civil fine of not less than S50
nor more than $5,000 per day for each day in which such violation
-
is allowed to occur or exist after notice of violation is served
- ?.1l -
: ...
-
.
upon suCh party by the City or its agents.
.
.~---,
~'. -
> -
"\.
.<
U
I-
-<
co
......
:r:
x
w
.e ~d/l6~f- e
MAR D 8 ~c.:J1
vZ hb_Jd;(~&~
/U~~ ~
d~...L- r-/~~~
fi; !J"/ ~~~ ~..-'
~~~
~~~~~
~~~~~~
~ ~~~d-;
_ /t/.,X'- ~ ~~ ~ ~
~ ~~~c?~
~ ~~~~ ~
~~~~~
~~~.~.
~ r_/ ~
>>U~~ ~r~ 5;
~_ cY7Jt. ~. Si:. I
~ ;
- J:::1
RUTH ROBINSON 3356 Barnard Way. Santa Monica, California 90405
f
/_/. II IqCj
./.........1 f I'
tf
jtl.../ ~,~ )Ju'.~~ GCf _
,/ IC,
l~ . C:..:-~Y'"" ......~ Q....."t", I.l'"Lv~.... UC
.J, _L"~J 1..
Z. )JL.M-- U~J.. },yt..L/t{ 6~~...,,-~
J.. --1-._.~..A_ ---t~:....r~ ft -i"""-.- (./L&L-e"'..;t Cc.r-t
(xu.- r~l /7/11 /l~'-v'l <TU--' ri~
['1 . J '. /:. ~ 'J~ ~
. . ~'iVlI..(..~ c:r>7~Y~ ~ .,'-"^.........,~"-'" t..-t'-.L ~ --I:..-
A I,
u (l n ,---'-- I - '-' -r- 4 *--
/)} ~-hU/' &- f-<-.........;-- ~i-L<._..... (;r l,/I, ~ /I' k ---L-
evt~ t: t-c2t:,,-<<::'- J d~ ''-'~~l t: ~
J /"' ~ " y
-ctlc....:i.. 0- -iu'1"-'- ....ve- L-l.-J..i..-" Ct-t1f..A-&V~ .
fA. '-<-~ .J:: t~..zA.-' k ~. tJ ,,-..-..... ?'}"'- '1 <-<'-'i_
/}~ .(J '~l~ /)--a.. t.t::.~,tA. 4~./ "^ ..fu; -;yu;~
+ / .
1./ ~1I""'j /). ~~tL- v l/L.................tLc-.---r A "L~'_ "
(j / ;' /"----"--""~'-'" IA_/,-<-/
u...-<....l t.-\.....J:.-t'\....c /~"--- ....u..-'-"u.,.'-"1 ~~~-.'1 (.V~
r!...r..'--r-ru- L.:. C~,'-' -c.. U.-" <'" (.'_- ....~ j7--id.....--w. t,l'-...t>-x
( .. '1' -+- I' '
tr..h; ).~( -i_ tt--c.--'l__p.;C'r.1,___I..--u- /Ct: C~ c."<-V~~/4_.:--
~,
U - ~:-.
~ ' /'
I" L . __ A:.. T:L- f::J-..<::.( 'ii.-' .<fI../
.y ...LL~-f'v I-.""-~''''''<...<....c'...... .
~'1vL-~..........~t,--C"rv (
,
, ,
_ ~""-~G-"'~ I
----n ' ~
IC--,-Lr::;-{~ k<, {-t.--1'-"---. -,""-./'
.
STAN FLlNKMAN
A TTOfi'NEY A T LA W FE3 ;: ~Gg 1
'" .~
JOOS MAl'" S~~E::T SUiTE 500
SANTA MO""CA (Al'F()~,'JiA 90405
396 . 439
reb :'"~a:-:".-" 13 j ra'
':1J.l.
City of Santa ~on~ca
Honorable C1ty Ccunc11 ~embers
Eonorable plann~ng Commiss~on Members
1685 M.a1~ Street
Santa ~o:nca, Call.fornia
. Dear Pub~~c Servants:
I am the o~ner of the east side of the block of Main Street that is bordered
on the south by Marine Street, and on the north by Pier Avenue. I have been
a Main Street Property owner and actively worked in the area for over thirty
years. During this time I have developed hundreds of units of affordable
hous1ng in the ~~ediate vicinity. I am pleased with the rebirth of our
area. I hope that the present plan on the table will allow the street to
continue with a balanced growth that addresses the needs of both the areas
residepts and visitors.
r want to express my satisfaction and support with the revision to the Main
Street Zoning Ordinance that you are going to be shortly considering. It has
been compiled through the intense efforts of the area residents, merchants
and property owners. I feel that the present plan promotes a fiar compromise
between the varying interests that all these parties have. There are certain
add1tions and clar~fications to the plan that could have been made. I would
have preferred that the CM-4 zone was not left up for further discussion and
left J.ntact. Instead the committee chose to preseDt the plan giving various
options for this zone that would be up to you to choose. You will have to
weigh the testimony from all the parties and reach a fair decision on this
issue.
I hope my input makes your important job a little easier.
ve~~ yours, _, _
~ :~~ k \C5 ("")
~fg.~~771-"'-- . .:2~
--
5T FLINKMAN -< ~
~ - -
c:J
:::0
SF!tu N
VI --
-
-:l -
\",,1
0
A
--
CALTAP .
FEB 1 I 1991
7rattlC Jnd Parking Consullants ~
'9i p=--n February 7, 1991
"--.... --
-- /~
... l "-~ - .....,
Mayor and Clty Councll
and Plannlng CommlSSlon
c/o DBI
2219 Maln Street
Santa Monlca, Calli,
90405
Re: MAIN STREET ZONING ORDINANCE
Dear Mayor, Councllmembers and Planning Comm1ss1oners:
I am addresslng you as a partner of proJect be~~g bu~lt
on Maln street as well as a businessowner on the Street.
I have had an opportunlty to thoroughly reVlew the
proposed Main Street Zonlng Ord~nance. The Ord~nance 15 a
carefully structured and negotiated document. Any lndivldual
changes to the document may have far reachlng effects.
Although there are speclfic items wlthln the plan wlth
WhlCh I disagree, I am wllllng to accept the plan as
presented ln order to have the elements I strongly support.
No document wlll make everybody happy. I support. the
extenslve process WhlCh had buslnessowners, property owners
and resldents worklng together to develop the proposed plan.
I wish to emphas1. ze that any change to the proposed
document may ellmlnate my support and my partner's support
for the proposed plan.
Please adopt thlS plan as it was approved by the Cltlzen
Plannlng Commlttee.
Yours very truly,
~
~
DavlS/ III
25'0 'lAaln StreeT S..JIle 2' 7 Sar'a 'v1or-lca CA 9G4J5
2"33928541 Te.eJ< 595265 CAL FAX 2133964076
A sepm;;e of CourselD'S at Large I~'e'r.a"ora- Wlt~ a"',;,a'e:: cff;::es wC' ::-,/0'102
---
'--..... "'"
~ ::: ,. : ',:q 1
....~
~ CRAIG A MCDONALD
ATTORNEY "'T ~w ~E~Eo-O"E' 21 ),
21!l6!.MAI"" S..t::!E"[T5U1TE 240 4'S.200e'
....x 2-)'
SA ""^ MO...IC..... Ci\LlfORNIIl 90<0'
.9i ~,~:; 25 r: ~4 ~52S)5a
&:'I'-~""'C
February 21, 1991
The C1ty of Santa Monica C1ty Council and
The city of Santa Monica Planning commission
c/o Douglas Barnard Incorporated
2219 Main street
Santa Monica, California 90405
re: 1990-1991 Main street Zoning Ordinance
Gentlemen:
I am the owner of the real properties located at 2665 Main Street
Santa Monica, California and 2660 Second street, Santa Monica,
Ca11fornia. In addition I was one of the landowner's
representatives involved in the drafting of the new Main street
Zoning Ordinance over the last eighteen months.
I believe the process on which the ordinance was developed
(representatives of the land owners, residential tenants,
commercial tenants and neighborhood representatives) was the best
process to use in that a satisfactory compromise was reached for
the benefit of all parties involved. Therefore, any major change
to the proposed ordinance would eliminate my support and I ask
the City council and Planning Commission to adopt the ordinance as
proposed.
Althouqh there are specific items within the ordinance which I may
disagree I am willing to accept the proposed ordinance in its
entirety.
Thank you for giving your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
~ -~ ~~'\~~\
- --- ,
. ---
Cra2g A. McDonald
CAM/slf
-
]OtIN "ALL DESIGN5
FINE Ft;~"ill'URE MADE TO ORDER
'91 ,;ER 25 ?J :.1
Fe bruary 13, 1991
YU FAX - 396-3719
The Santa Mon~ca City Pl&nn1nc Commission
&: City Councl1
c/o Douglas Barnard Incorporated
Project Design & Development
2219 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Dear Sirs:
As & property owner at 2507 Main Street9 I would like to
express my support for the revisions. I have reviewed the
plans and while not agreein. with all isaues, I do support it
as proposed, and the proces. in which it was developed.
Any changes from this format may not have my support.
Sincerely,
~::~ IMC
JH:mc
(Dictated by not read)
~
1010 ~O~T ANA A VENUE · SANTA Mo?"nCA. CALIfORNIA 90403 · (213) 393-0305
G\ c.""'r~~~.r"r:~~~:~
r. - ~ {.... \:.Jir, ,)
-- vI . ....,
r ~ - U' 'I - Tp":J t ',,'r
1-.._ ..... ~.......
~ i"~...l \j '1...1
L~."'r~r-"I..J
GRl\ND Alv1ERlCAN '91 il~~ 25 ?: C 4 <!"-",,'
'21,'. ..'iLl -190u
:- -...... .... ... ........f' of
r- _...... . I --, 1._.....
I _ _ >oJ V _-..I
February 1, 1991
Santa Mon1ca Planning Comm~SSlon
c/O Douglas Barnard Incorporated
2219 Main street
Santa Monica, California 90405
Re: Main Street Zoning Ordinance
. Gentlemen:
This letter 1S to confirm my support of the Main Street Zoning
ordinance proposal with revis10ns reviewed at the Main Street
Property Owners Association on Tuesday, January 22/ 1991.
I am famil~ar with the specifics of the plan. Although I have some
thoughts about some items within the plan, I am willing to totally
accept the plan as proposed.
If the plan were to be changed I would feel obliged to withdraw my
support. I feel that much work and consideration has gone into the
proposal and I support it wholeheartedly as ~t now stands.
There is no doubt in my mind that this proposal will benef~t
successfully all commercial enterprlses on Main street.
Slncerely,
GRAND AMERICAN, INC.
.-
c- ___ ~
Albert T. Ehringer
Chairman
ATE/j s,
bobi leonardi interiors FEB I ~ 19~1
CO....ERClAl a RESIOERTU.L DESIGN
.9; Iii:;:} 2C:; ?: Ct
-, .J
February 13, 1991
Santa r.ionica Cl.ty CouncJ.l & Plann.l.ng Cornrn~SSl.on
c/o Douglas Barnard Incorporated
2219 }~a1.n Street
Santa l1onl.ca, Cal~fornl.a 90405
Dear Cl.ty Councl.l & ?lannl.ng Comm.l.SS.l.on ~embers,
I am wrl.tl.ng you th.l.s letter regard.l.ng the proposed revl.sions
to the Main Street ZonJ.ng Ord~nance. I am a Main Street property .
owner, and I had the chance to review th.l.s plan at our MaJ.n Street
Property.Owners AssocJ.at.l.on meeting. I support the process by
which the plan was developed, and although there are a few .l.tems
w.l.th.l.n ,the pla~ that I d.l.sagree w.l.th, I am will.l.ng to accept the
plan as a whol~. Please understand that any changes to this plan
(~Y eltminate 1Y support.
Thank ! .
\ ~if
\
.
.
HUON CINftJl ACClaaGlIW aALU,",
'r17T M"IN ST . SANiA MONICA. CA I0I05 2727 MAIN ST . SANiA ..ONICA,. CA 104Cl5
12'~) 3112-4512 (213) 3...3251
--.-- -.""0.........
::- ... -=- J.....- -...._ ':::::/,/1.11-,,::::::
~:: =.::...: ;,J~s-.~
5':';:=~1,.1E'-..;TC ::. ~.12.::; ~C'~. . ~- -IGr-E= =:.L:;..=. "".C".i ':'-1,:;,R
~.~, ..:....5-- 6-:-" ~
- - 3..1NK'J'::; :: 't.:..\:SE ..4.~.,jC
.::- Sr=-C.J,C;,NA-~' ~~55:embltT 3CNOE~ ~CE57=:~=3S
3~ -E :X ~AT~PAL~=5C~~C=3
5..... i.- .:. -' .Cl\i':;' :.:.. 9D...C- ~ ([al ifn;nia IC~Brsf-iHhrt
.2' 3; 39': :2'" - ;:;:
J
TOM HAYDEN
\'EveE-=' s-:- .l,-E A.SSc./SL"
June 19, :991 ..l..lT"" :):5T:::,CT
Mr. Ralph Mechur
Chalr, ?lannlng CO~~lss~on
1685 ~aln street
Santa Monlca, CA 90401
Dear Commlssloner Mechur:
I strongly urge ~he ~lannlng CO~~lss~on to oppose
the Maln street co~~~ttee's p~oposal to remove traffic
lanes and bus lines fron Main street. The goal of
wldenlng Sldewalks for outcoor dlnlng by thrusting off
autornoblle, bus and blke traf=lc to surround~ng
nelghborhoods lS a tunnel Vls~on approach to planning
that lS- not In the best lnteres~s of Santa Monlca as a
whole.
r am shocked that MalTI Street buslness lnterests
would seek to increase the gro~~h and congestlon that lS
fast becornl~g t~e bane of Scnta ~onlca eXlstence. It was
less than a decade ago that MalD street emerged as an
examole of exceSSlve growth. ~ow It lS arnaZlng to read
that-Main street merchants cons~der ~hernselves over-
shadowed by development like the ~hlrd S~reet Promenade
and Montana Avenue. They a~e In effect propos~ng that
Santa Monlca create a second ?rQme~ade, a fa1ltast.lc
vlsion TNholly out of llne T.nth the env1.ronmental and
h~~an scale thlnklng In thlS COIDflunlty. The PlannJ..ng
COmm.lSlOn must reverse the preserr~ t~e~d toward
over-development throu~h lncremer.ta: ger~lttlTIg.
I hope you cons.lder ~~e :ollowl~g In analyzlng
the Mal~ street plan:
1. The Clty Transpo~tation Depar~ment has
demonstrated that removal 0: tje bus l.lnes f~om Maln
street wou:d l~co~venlence 2,000 bus patrons.
2. I ~nderstand that many of the res~aurants on
~aln street already have outdoor-~atios l~ the back of
the~r lots wh~ch can cate~ to ~tose cus~omers desLrl~g
outdoor dl:ll.ng.
;=.,.."" e-c ~ >"l ;;ec lC ~c ~ :i::e'
-
3. Wh~le Main street buskness owners might look
w~stfully at the large crowds ae the Promenade, consider
the bumper-to-bumper traff~c, the severe shortage of
parklng, the 1ncreasing pol~ce and f1re protect~on needed
for crowd control and ~ncldents of publ1C dr~nkenness.
ThlS 15 not a model to which Ma2n street should aspire.
Elim1nating traff1c lanes on an already heavlly
travelled street leaving surrounding neighborhoods to
cope with the aftermath 1S not responsible, comprehens1ve
plann1ng. I th1nk we can find a better way to preserve
and enhance the identity and vlab1llty of Main street.
~cerelY
err- HAYD'" ~.
cc: Paul Berlant
..
0
t-
.......
a:l
-
I
><
W
---
Esto as una noticia de una audencia publica para revisar
applicaciones proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si desea
mas informacion, favor de llamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la
Division de Planificacion al numero (213) 458-8585.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Suzanne Frick
Planning Manager
wjmainotcc
- 2 -
-~
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
TO REVIEW THE MAIN STREET MASTER PLAN
AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISIONS
TO: Concerned Persons
FROM: The city of Santa Monica
Subject: Main street Master Plan and proposed
Ordinance Revisions
Please be advised that a Public Hearing will be held before the
City council to consider the Main Street Master Plan and Proposed
Ordinance Revisions on Tuesday, October 15/ 1991 at 7:30 pm in
City Council Chambers.
The Main street Master Plan and Proposed Ordinance Revisions
~ocument was prepared in a joint effort between the Main Street
Advisory Committee and City Planning staff. It recommends new
zoning controls and Master Plan policies for the Main street
Commercial District.
WHEN: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1991 AT 7:30 P.M.
WHERE: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
ROOM 213, CITY HALL
1685 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
HOW TO COMMENT
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment on this and
other projects. You or your representative or any other persons
may comment at the City council public hearing or by writing a
letter.
Letters should be addressed to .
.
City Clerk, Room 102
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
MORE INFORMATION
If desired, further information on this report may be obtained
from the city Clerk1s Office at the address above or by calling
Paul Foley, Associate Planner at(2l3) 458-8585
The meeting facility is handicapped accessible. If you have any
special needs such as sign language interpreting, please contact
the Office of the Disabled at (213) 458-8701.
Pursuant to California Government Code section 65009(b), if this
matter is subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be
limited to only these issues raised at the Public Hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered
to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the Public Hearing.
- 1 -
---- --
W
I-
.....
III
-
I
X
W
.
"
10. 30:5 MAIN
B:":'G. - 42,000 s.f. USE - mixed - retail/office/
SITE-15,225 s.f. residential
STORIES - 4 (+ 1 subt.): 47' FAR - 2.7
11. 3110 MAIN
BLDG. - 23,912 USE - mixed - retail/office/
SITE - 17,518 residential
STORIES - 4 FAR - 1. 3
- Figures derived from Planning and Zoning and Building
Department Files.
w/mainstfa
lO/O9/9l
.
- 2 -
MAIN STREET FLOOR AREA RATIOS
FOR BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED
FROM 19BO-PRESENT
1. 1901 MAIN
BLDG. - 14,745 s.f. USE - retail/commercial
SITE - 10,448 s.f.
STORIES-3; (+2 levels subt.);
47' FAR 1.4
2. 2110 MAIN
BLDG. - 14,400 s.f. USE - mixed: retail/office/
SITE - 9,000 s.f. residential
STORIES - 3; 35' max. FAR - 1.6
3 . 2200 MAIN
BLDG. - 6,280 s.f. USE - mixed: retail/office
. SITE - 3,835.90 s.f. In '90 - 2nd floor converted
STORIES - 2; 50' from residential to commercial
FAR 1. 6
4. 2218 MAIN
BLDG.- 5,950 s.f. USE - office/residential
SITE - 5,200 s.f.
STORIES - 3 FAR 1. 1
-
5. 2434 MAIN
BLDG - 8,000 s.f. USE - office/retail
SITE - APX. 6,800 s.f.
STORIES - 2; 22' FAR - 1. 1
6. 2435 MAIN
BLDG. - 34,450 s.f. USE - retail/office/restaurant
SITE - 50,000 s.f. museum
STORIES - 2; 27' FAR - .69
7. 2510 MAIN
BLDG. - 10,060 s.f. USE - retail/commercial
SITE - 8,532 s.f.
STORIES - 2 (+1 subt.) FAR - 1.1
8. 2727 MAIN
BLDG. - 4,100 s.f. USE - retail/commercial
SITE - 7,500 s.f.
STORIES - 2~ 27' FAR - .55
9. 2820 MAIN
BLDG. - 2,365 USE - restaurant
SITE - apx. 5,850 (78'X751 lot)
STORIES - 17' FAR - .40
,
- 1 -
LL
l-
I-!
co
......
I
><
w
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ATE Management and Servlce Company, Inc., ln con]Unctlon wlth the
Ilne-by-llne analysis of the Santa Monlca Munlclpal Bus Lines
(SMMBL) , was dlrected to examlne the feasiblllty and lmpact of
certaln changes to eXlsting bus routes In the Maln Street
Conunerclal Area. The study lncluded an analysls of operatlonal
feasibl11ty along the proposed alternate routes, and a one-day
survey of passenger responses to the proposed changes.
Currently, four SMMBL bus routes and one Southern Callfornla
Rapid Transit District (SCRTD) route travel from downtown Santa
Monica through the study area. The SMMBL routes are: Llnes 1, 2 I
8, 10: the SCRTD route is Line 33. SMMBL Line 1 and SCRTD Line
33 operate on Maln st., from pica Blvd. in Santa Monica to
Windward Ave. In Venlce. Llne 8 uses Main st. from Colorado Ave.
to Ocean Park Blvd., passing through the portion of the
Commercial Area north of Ocean Park Blvd. Line 10, a freeway
express servlce, operates selected rush hour trlps on Maln north
of Marine st. SMMBL Llne 2 runs south on 4th st. from downtown
Santa Monica, turns west on Hlll st., then south on Neilson Way.
Approximately 2,000 daily bus rlders use SMMBL buses In the area
affected. An unknown number of rlders use the SCRTD servlce.
Under the proposed plan, buses would be rerouted from Main st. to
Nellson Way to avold the Main Street Commercial Area. The
proposed reroutlng would lntroduce a daytlme average of over
thirty buses per hour to Nellson Way, north of Hill st.; an area
where no buses currently operate in servlce. This will result in
impacts en motor~sts and adjacent resldents.
ATE's Senlor Operations Consultant used a SMMBL bus to conduct an
operational analysis of alternative routes. Field observations
of the route optlons indicate that none lS as desirable as the
current routlng from an operational, passenger or traffic
perspective. Operational concerns were identified with uSlng
Nellson Way north of Hill St. for the volume of bus traff1c
proposed, because of the lack of left turn hays at crltical
lntersections. With the current curb lane of Ne11son Way
ut1lized as a thru-traffic lane at all times, each tlrne a bus
stops for passengers it would be doing so in the flow of traffic,
blocklng other vehicles. In addltion, the transfer of serv~ce to
Nel1son raises concerns for bus passenger safety, due to the lack
of traffic control deVlces near potential bus stops.
In order to reduce the number of passengers affected on Main
street in Venice, an optlon was examined, which would route Line
1 and 33 buses north on Main to Rose, then west to Nellson
(called Paciflc in Venice) . It should be noted that the
operatlonal concer~s expressed about Neilson Way would rema1n, as
uSlng tie11son 1S ccr~on to both alternatlves. A bus driven on a
test drlve along the proposed route could not ~ake the right turn
from westbound Rose onto northbound PacificjNel1son wlthout uSlng
a portion of the southbound traff~c lanes, due to the lnadequate
curb radlus at the lntersection. The alternatlve would be to
remove all bus servlce on Main st. and operate only on Ne11son
between pico and Windward.
t
I
I
,
(
ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED ROUTING CHANGES TO
SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL BUS LINES
November 6, 1991
Prepared By:
ATE Management' Service Company, Inc:.
5150 E. Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 102
Long Beach, Californ~a 90804
(310) 498-3267
INTRODUCTION
A proposal has been made to move all bus traffIC, currently
traveling on MaIn st., one block west to the parallel street,
NeIlson Way (called PacIfIC Avenue In Venice) . In addItIon, It
has been proposed that servIce presently operatIng on Hill St./
between 4th St. and NeIlson Way, be moved to Ocean Park Blvd. In
conJunct1on w1th the llne-by-llne analysIs of Santa MonIca
MunICIpal Bus LInes (SMMBL) beIng conducted for the CIty, ATE
Management and service Company, Inc. was directed to examine the
feaSIbIlIty and impact of these changes to existIng bus routes In
the Main street CommerCIal Area.
To test the operational feasibllIty of possible alternate routes,
ATE's SenIor Operations Consultant field-tested potential
reroutlngs, USIng a GMC tranSIt bus, with a configuration SIMIlar
to the MaJority of buses in the Santa Monica fleet. In order to
determine the effects of the servIce proposals on eXIstIng
tranSIt riders, a survey was conducted of SMMBL passengers who
boarded or allghted from SMMBL buses as they passed through the
Main Street study area. The purpose of this report is to provide
the City WIth the results and findIngs of ATE's examination of
these proposals. ThlS analysis focuses on two maJor issues: the
operatIonal feasibIlIty of the proposed changes and the impact of
the potentIal service revisions on existing transit riders using
QUs servIce in the area.
;
DESCRIPTION OF TRAu~SIT SERVICE IN THE STUDY AREA
The Maln street Commercial D1strIct, as defined in the Main
Street Master Plan and Proposed OrdInance Revisions, June, 1991,
extends from Pico Blvd. approximately ten blocks south to the
city's southern boundary at Marine street. It lS bordered on the
east by Second Street and on the west by NeIlson Way WhIle the
study area 1S specifIcally the Commercial District, sidential
areas are immed1ately adjacent on the east and sout!:. Some hIgh
densIty residential uses also border the west side of NeIlson
Way.
Substantial transit service lS provided to this area to support
both residentIal and commercial transportation needs. SMMBL
operates four routes, providing service to the bUS1nesses and
residents of Main Street, the larger Ocean Park area and the
western sectlon of Venice. SCRTD operates service on one route.
The proposed plan recommends that all the bus lines serving the
area be rerouted.
SMMBL LIne I, Santa Monlca Blvd.-Venice-UCLA, operates every 10
minutes durIng the day (every 30 mInutes at night) on Main Street
from FlCO to the Venlce Post OffIce (at Windward Ave. in VenIce).
Line 8, Ocean Park Blvd.-Carlyle Ave.-UCLA runs on Main St. from
the end of MaIn at Santa Monica Place to Ocean Park Blvd., then
travels east on Ocean Park Blvd. Buses are scheduled from
downtown Santa Monlca every 15 mlnutes durlng the day and every
30 mlnutes at night. Line 10, an express service between the
Santa Monlca/West Los Angeles area and downtown Los Angeles,
operates certaln trIps durlng the peak commute hours on MaIn st.,
1
When travellng from do~ntown Santa Monlca to Ocean Park Blvd,
Llne 8 operates along Second St. and Maln St. On the portlon of
the route north of Ocean Park Blvd., the rerouting of the buses
Vla Nellson would suffer from the same problems descrlbed for
Maln Street servlces. In order to malntaln the portlon of the
route passlng the CiV1C Center, buses would have to use PICO
Blvd., between Maln and NeIlson Way; however, the buses cannot
rr-ove over into the left turn pockets on westbound pico at
Nellson, nor eastbound PICO at Maln. Unless some other solutIon
were found, Llne 8 bus servlce, passlng the C1V1C Center, may
have to be abandoned and the buses, lnstead, routed Vla Ocean
Ave.
The MaIn st. plan, as proposed, also suggests moving Llne 2
service from Hl1l St. to Ocean Park Blvd., between 4th st. and
Neilson Way. Currently, over a hundred passengers a day use the
stop at 4th and Hill sts., while another 80 use the stop at Hlll
and MaIn sts. Buses can be operated on Ocean Park Blvd.,
although the abIlIty of buses to make the turn from 4th st. onto
the Ocean Park Blvd. onraMp 15 marginal. Field tests also ralsed
questions about the abillty of buses to cross three lanes of
traffIC after leaving the west edge of the onramp ln order to
reach the left turn pocket on Ocean Park Blvd. at Neilson, under
! heavy traffIC conditlons. ThlS movement is necessary for the
I buses to continue south on Neilson. Under no circumstances, can
LIne 2 buses stop at Main st. and stlll use the turn pocket.
, These concerns make the eXlsting route preferable from an
1 operat~onal po~nt of v~ew.
As part of the study, surveys were dlstributed on SMMBL buses In
i the Main street area to obtaIn passenger input on the proposed
, route changes. A summary of the survey responses to the proposed
reroutlng of service from Main St. showed that over 68% of the
respondents stated the change would make thelr trip more
dIfficult, while 15% felt that the change would make theIr trIp
eaSler. The rest were unaffected by the change.
A separate survey was conducted of L~ne #2 passengers at the two
bus stops affected. Approximately 74% of those who responded
lndicated that the proposed change would make their trips more
difficult, while 6% stated that the revisions would make thelr
trip easier. The rest reported that they were unaffected. The
fact that the bus stop at 4th and Hill sts. serves the entlre
area south and east of that lntersection, including the Santa
Monica School Distrlct's SMASH facility, may help explaIn this
negative reactlon.
Given the operatlonal and safety concerns of relocatIng the
existing translt servIces, along with the apparent Opositlon to
the change expressed by affected SMMBL passengers, it is
, suggested that the City conslder retalnlng such servIces as they
currently eXlst.
Ii
.
lndlcate that nelther lS as deSIrable as the current routIng from
an operatIonal, passenger or traffic perspectlve.
PaCIfIc/NeIlson OptIon
Under the Paclflc/Nel1son optlon, buses would operate along
Nel1son Way (called Paciflc Ave. In Venlce) for the entIre
dIstance between WIndward Ave. and Pica Blvd. ThIS would
duplIcate Line 2 on the portion of route from Windward Ave. ln
Venlce to Hill St. in Santa Monlca. No bus routes currently
operate on Neilson north of Hill st. IntrOducing a daytime
average of over thirty buses per hour to Neilson way w1ll result
in lmpacts for motorists and adjacent resldents.
Neilson Way appears to be approximately 55 feet wlde with two 13
foot lanes of traffIC operated in each dire~tlon. There is
currently no stopp1ng, standing or parking llmied alonG his
thoroughfare. There are no left turn pockess available r
turnIng traffic. As a result, two operatIonal concerns ecome
eVIdent.
FIrst, the absence of left turn bays at critical intersections
will exacerbate the traffIC problem caused by dramatlcally
i increaslng the bus service on Neilson. In both dlrections,
I certain locations on Nellson, north of Hill, must be designated
as passenger stops. with the current curb lane of Neilson Way
L utilized as a thru-traffic lane at all times, each time a bus
i stops for passengers, It would be doing so in the flow of moving
traffic, blocking other vehlcles, as well as creating a potentIal
( for rear end accidents. Should Maln street be phYSIcally
altered to the pOInt that a signlficant portion of the current
Main Street traffIC volume was moved to Ne~lson Way, the number
of left turns from Neilson Way onto the east-west streets would
grow apprec1ably. The higher number of turning movements will
lncrease traffic congestion in the #1 lane. If at the same time,
lane #2 is blocked by a bus load1ng passengers, thru travel may
be halted altogether.
It is recognlzed that bus routes operate under similar condItions
in other places, normally where no alternative eXIsts. What
creates the greater concern in this instance IS the volume of bus
and automobile traffic being moved.
S~cond, the transfer of the servlce to Neilson raises concern
about bus passenger safety. Given the existlng land use patterns
of the area, a maJority of the passengers have pOlnts of orlg1n
or destination on or east of Main Street. Therefore, most
passengers USIng buses on Neilson Way must cross Nel1son before
boarding the bus or after allghtlng from the bus. At stop
locatlons where traffIC control devices are not aval1able,
addltienal efforts should be made to ensure the safety of the
passenger/pedestrlans.
Main/Rose/Neilson Optlon
In order to malnta~n some servlce on MaIn Street in Venlce on
SMMBL Llne 1 and on SCRTD LIne 33 (SMMBL Llnes 8 and 10 are not
affected by this opt1on) , and reduce the number of passengers
3
- ~-
.
between Pler Ave. and PICO Blvd. In addltlon, SCRTD's Llne ~33
(VenIce 81 vd. ) operates on MaIn St., from PICO to Windward Ave.
every 20 mInutes durlng the day wIth lncreases In servlce durlng
the peak commute perlods.
Currently, SMMBL Line 2, WI1shlre B1vd.-Venlce-UCLA, operates
south on 4th St. every 15 m1.nutes, between Wilshire and HIll St. ,
and on Hlll St. (crosslng Maln St.), between 4th and Nel1son. It
has been proposed that SMMBL Llne 2 be moved from HIll street to
Ocean Park Blvd., between 4th st. and Neilson Way. The plan to
relocate Line 2 has been proposed to provlde addltional on-street
parklng on HIll St. for Mal.n st. patrons. Attachnent 1 shows a
map of the SMMBL and SCRTD routes.
A review of the current bus schedules shows that the four bus
.
routes on Maln st. average 16 buses per hour travelIng northbound
and 22 buses per hour operating southbound on Main St. durIng the
mornIng peak perlod (6 a.m. to 9 a.m.); an average of 38 buses
per hour in both dlrectlons. In the afternoon, an average of 18
buses per hour operate northbound and 15 buses per hour operate
southbound durIng the peak three hour perlod (3 p.rr. to 6 p.m.);
an average of 33 buses per hour ln both dlrectlons. The hlghest
number of buses 15 42 operating in both dlrect1ons, durlng the
I one hour perlod between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. In the wIddle of the
day (between 10 a.m. and 3 p. m. ) , the number of buses per hour in
both dlrections drops to 27. The average daytime buses per hour
; (6 a.m. to 6 p. In. ) on Ma1.n St. 1.S 3 L Bus serv1ce IS
r
l SUbstantially reduced at nlght and on weekends. Attachment 2
summarizes the average number of buses per hour operated on MaIn
! st. by each affected bus lIne.
i
Based on patronage data collected for the City by ATE durIng the
1988 Line-by-LIne Analysis of SMMBL servlce, 1,723 SMMBL
passengers board or allght each weekday at the bus stop locations
on Main st. most directly impacted by the proposed change.
Passengers rlding SCRTD's Line 33 are not included In this total.
In additlon, approximately 200 passenger boardlngs and alightings
occur at the two bus stop locations on Hill street. Well over
2,000 passenger trips a day generated ln the Santa MonIca portlon
of the Main street area would be affected by the changes
suggested.
OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
In order to determine the operational feasibllity of the proposed
changes, ATE's Senior Operations Consultant toured the area using
a SMMBL bus along the proposed routes.
SMMBL Line 1 - Santa MonIca Blvd.-Venlce-UCLA
Line 1 _travels on Main st., between the Venice Post Offlce (at
Windward Ave. and Main st.) and UCLA. Two optlons were examlned:
the Paclflc/Neilson option and the Main/Rose/Neilson option. It
should be noted that the optlons would be the same for SCRTD Line
#33. Comments concerning servIce on NeIlson Way would also apply
to Llne 10, WhlCh operates on Maln north of Pler Ave. Both of
the pOSSIble routes would use PacifiC Ave./Neilson way to bypass
the Main Street area. Field observations of these route optlons
2
For the most part, movlng LIne #8 servlce from Maln St. to
Nel1son Way would suffer from the same general problems descrlbed
for LIne l. Under one alternative, service could be rerouted
along Ocean Avenue/Neilson Way from Santa MonIca Blvd. If an
effort IS to be made to continue servlce adJacent to the Santa
Monlca CIVIC Center, then southbound buses would have to make the
transltlon from MaIn St. to Neilson at Pica Blvd. The westbound
left turn movement from P1CO to Nel1son creates its own set of
problems.
Buses travelIng from downtown Santa MonIca to Ocean Park Blvd.,
turnlng from southbound Main st. to westbound pica Blvd. would
have to cross two lanes of traffic WIthin approxImately 50 feet
to reach the left turn pocket westbound on P1CO at NeIlson. Due
to the extremely short length of the block between Main and
Neilson, as well as the short length of the left turn lane from
westbound pico to southbound Nellson, the bus would not be able
to "square-up" wlth the intersectlon of PICO and Neilson prior to
recelvlng a green lIght allowlng the left turn onto Neilson.
WhIle waiting to turn, the rIght rear corner of the bus would
extend into the #1 lane of westbound traffic, caUSIng traffic In
the #1 lane to move to the rIght, out of thelr normal lane of
trafflC in order to clear the bus as It waits for eastbound
traffIC to clear to allow the left turn. The lane cannot be made
longer, as it would reduce the length of the left turn pocket
from eastbound Pico onto northbound Main, which must be used by
buses for return trips under this option.
i
I
To address the need for improved left turning on Neilson Way,
I experts sometimes recommend designating the #1 lane of westbound
i traffic as an alternatlve left turn lane with the present left
i turn lane remaining a mandatory turn movement, in effect
providIng two left turn lanes. This would allow buses to make a
left turn from what is now the #1 thru-lane of Pica Blvd. onto
NeIlson Way. Unfortunately, because the #2 lane 15 designated a
right turn only lane, the practlcal effect, If a bus were wait1ng
to turn left, would be to block the intersectlon to through
traffic altogether. However, unless some modification were made
to permlt buses to make the left turn onto Neilson, LIne 8 bus
service passing the Civic Center may have to be abandoned and the
buses, instead, routed V1a Ocean Ave.
A SImIlar problem exists In the Opposlte dlrection, as buses
turnIng right from Neilson Way would again have less than 50 feet
to cross two lanes of traffic to the left turn pocket on
eastbound P~co at MaIn. The primary dlfference In this directIon
is that the #2 lane is not deslgnated right turn only. The City
may w1sh to confirm these observations with the city Traffic &
EngineerIng Division, as ATE staff used in thlS study did not
include a trafflc engIneer.
-5
affected, an opt~on ~~ght be to requlre buses to travel north on
Maln St. between Wlndward Ave. ln Venlce and the Santa Monlca
border, and use Neilson Way ln Santa MonIca. The only maJor
connectIng street that could be found In the north VenIce area
was Rose Avenue. It should be noted that all the concerns lIsted
for the PaclflcjNellson optlon above would apply also to the
MalnjRosejNellson optlon.
A bus was drlven along the proposed route (Maln St.jRose
Ave./NeIlson Way(Paclflc Ave.) to ldentlfy any physlcal
constraints. A major problem was found at Rose and PaClflC
Avenues, where buses from Venlce would need to make a rlght turn
from westbound Rose to northbound PacIfic to continue on to
downtown Santa Monica. Because of the corner configuration and
the wldth of Pacific, lt was found that buses were forced to use
a portion of the southbound lanes of trafflc when making the
turn. On the first occaSlon when the turn was trled, southbound
traffic stopped to permit the bus to make the turn. The second
tire it was attempted, a car stopped to turn left onto Rose
backed up to allow the bus to make the turn.
InvestIgatIon IndIcates that the turnIng problem 15 caused
prIMarily by a substandard curb radlus on the northeast corner of
the lntersectlon, possIbly dIctated by the close prOXImIty to the
street of adJacent bUlldlngs. In the transit Industry, the curb
return at the corner where a rlght turn is made, should be a
, mlnimurn 25 feet from the beginning of the curb bend to ltS end.
I The dlstance at the Rose and PaCIfic intersection is only about
1 20 feet; 20% under the desired value. since, during the peak
hour, 14 SCRTD and SMMBL buses are currently scheduled to make
i that turn, the turn movement becomes a major concern, because of
, Its impact on traffic and vehicle safety.
On trIpS traveling frOM downtown Santa Monlca to VenIce, a left
turn would have to be made from southbound PaclflC to eastbound
Rose Ave. The turn can be made: however, because of the narrow
width of Rose at Pacific, cautlon must be exercised ln mak~ng the
turn to prevent a possible colllslon with vehlcles stopped at the
crosswalk westbound on Rose AVe.
It should be noted that any route adJustments in the City of Los
Angeles must be revlewed by, and recelve the approval of, that
city. Any adJustments to SCRTD's routes must be approved by the
District.
Line 8 - Ocean Park Blvd.-Carlyle AVe.- UCLA
Currently Llne #8 operates servIce between Santa Monlca Blvd. and
Ocean Park Blvd. via 2nd St. to Colorado Ave., and via Main st.
from Colorado AVe. to Ocean Park Blvd. The service passes by the
Main S~. slde of the Santa MonIca City Hall, the L.A. County
Court Buildlng and the Santa Monlca CiV1C Audltorium,
collectively known as the CiV1C Center. At a mlnl~um,
eliminatlng bus service on Main Street would affect the portlon
of the route between pico Blvd. and Ocean Park Blvd.
4
On both survey fo~s, a descrlption of the proposed route change
was gIven and patrons were asked to lndlcate how the service
change would impact thelr trip; whether the change would make lt
easler, more dIfflcult or have no effect. All surveys also
requested inforMatlon on where each respondent began and ended
his/her trlp. surveys dlstributed on all four lines were
prepared In both EnglIsh and SpanIsh.
Attachment 3 shows a summary of the survey responses to the
prlmary questlon of how the proposed route changes would affect
existlng rlders on each of the lIDpacted SMMBL lines. Over 68% of
the respondents Impacted by the proposed re-routing to Ne~lson
Way stated that the change would make theIr trip more difflcult.
On the other hand, 15% of the lmpacted riders responded that the
proposed changes would make theIr translt trlp easier. The rest
indIcated that they would not be affected.
SURVEY RESULTS ON LINE 2
Responses to surveys dlstributed on Line 2 on Hl11 Street
definItely supported rnalntainlng the existing bus route. Of the
88 total responses, approxImately 74% indicated that the proposed
I change would Make their trlps by translt more difficult, whl1e 6%
stated that the reVISlons would make their trip easier. The
remaInder of the respondents stated that they would not be
affected by the proposed rerouting.
The strong opposltion to movlng the bus servlce from Hll1 st. to
Ocean Park Blvd. may mIrror the lnconvenience that passengers
l feel would be caused by the move. In partlcular, the bus stop at
4th and Hill sts. serves the entire area south and east of that
intersection, Slnce no other bus servIce operates in the area
between Main st. and Lincoln Blvd. Additlonally, the stop at 4th
and Hill Sts. is the closest to the Santa Monica Unified School
District's SMASH faci11ty. If the stop were moved to 4th st. and
Ocean Park Blvd., over 100 passengers a day would be required to
walk 600 feet more than they are currently walking to reach the
bus stop.
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
The decision concerning SMMBL bus service on Maln st. becomes a
policy issue. From a bus operatIons perspective, the current
routes are preferable to any of the alternatives examined. The
routes operate on streets that were chosen in1tially because they
could accommodate transit buses, and were close to the passenger
shed. Alternative routes examined showed several drawbacks in
operat1onal safety and passenger convenience. In some cases
expenditures mlght be made to improve street design and trafflc
control to accommodate use by buses and bus passengers. For
others, no reallstlc solutions appear to exist. It should be
noted that references to increased congestlon and traff1c
problems may be subject to further confirmation by trafflC
engineers. Such work is beyond the scope of this project.
(
Line 2- wilshire Blvd.-UCLA- Venlce
The MaIn street plan, as proposed, also suggests movIng Llne 2
servIce from travellng east-west on H~ll St. between 4th st. and
Neilson'Way to east-west on Ocean Park Blvd. From downtown Santa
Monlca to Ocean Park and Venlce, the revIsed routlng would be
south on Fourth street to Ocean Park Blvd. west VIa the access
ramp. Fleld testlng with a bus showed this rlght turn to be
margInally operable. The test was done In the SMMBL bus WIth the
shortest wheelbase, SMMBL buses with longer wheelbases will have
more dlfflculty with this turn.
The left turn onto Neilson from Ocean Park Blvd. is not possible,
If a stop is to be made ln the vlcinlty of the Ocean Park LIbrary
at MaIn st. The stop adJacent to the 11brary on Ocean Park Blvd.
(currently used by Line 8), would requlre the bus to cross three
lanes of traffIC ln less than 200 feet in order to Make the
NeIlson Way left turn move~ent. In the other dlrectlon, buses
travelIng to downtown Santa Monica eastbound on Ocean Park do
need to be careful WIth the left turn at 4th St., as there IS a
raIsed median slightly north of the intersectIon on 4th st. In
concluslon, L~ne 2 can be rerouted to Ocean Park Blvd., but the
existlng route lS preferred from an operatIonal pOlnt of view,
and, as explained later, by bus passengers in the area.
PASSENGER SURVEYS
,
i Surveys were dlstributed on L~nes 1, 8 and 10 to obtaIn passenger
input on the proposed route changes. QuestionnaIres were
i distributed by the bus drlvers to patrons as they boarded buses
withln the Main st. study area. The drlvers were assisted by
addltional surveyors who stood at designated bus stop locatlons
near the affected area to distrlbute surveys to those passengers
who were on the bus as it entered the study area. This
distrlbutlon was necessary to allow patrons, who boarded outside
of the study area, but who might be alightlng lnside the study
area and thus be lmpacted by the proposals, a chance to
partlclpate in the survey. It did mean, however, that some
unaffected passengers were also asked to fill out the survey.
Bus drivers and surveyors were instructed to offer a
questionnaire to passengers enterlng the Main street area, except
patrons who were boardlng on a return trlp and had already
completed a survey on a previous trlp. Passengers were requested
to return the completed questionnalres to the drIver.
On the same day, a slightly modified survey was conducted at the
two bus stop locations that would be impacted by the relocation
of buses operatlng on Line 2 from Hlll street to Ocean Park Blvd.
Survey~rs were posted at the bus stops at both Hill and 4th sts.
and Hill and Maln Sts. to dlstribute and collect questlonnalres
from bus patrons as they boarded and alighted at these locatlons.
Of the total of approximately 200 passengers boarding and
alighting at these stops, 88 completed and returned their
surveys.
0
"":lot 1
A t ~aC:l.:r__
c>.. .
.~
.....
<:)y - ;;>outes
3u;:, _,
':> ::r: 1 i\rea
(, .0 rc ~a _
~<;>Y 5~. Corr.r.t_ _
:-..~ :!al:-l
'=
'(:,0
-~
0""
0--"';
c.;
W ~
'",-
"-
"'- 7(<
1
\)">
(<<-
(:l
0<<
.j. '0 . ')..
1 <q"
cP ...'0 .
-q.Y '-::J
,
-z,.).
"'9
~0
r
e~ e.
~ y yV
~~
,:;'\;
e'V
. e.... ~t?
x""OU te "umo - 00
~.:~
I C . - ""'er:runus 00
lRoute - ~~
~ C;;V
",-y
. ..
~;.
C;;V
~0
.........
survey results indIcated that over two-thirds of the bus
passengers believe the changed routes would be less convenlent.
It should be noted that, due to tlme COmIDltments, only a one day
passenger survey could be conducted. It is reasonable to assume
that the results of the one day survey would also apply to those
bus passengers who do not ride dally and, thus, were not included
In the survey. The reduced accessibility indIcated by the rlders
may be an lndicator of future passenger deflection. DIscouraging
bus patronage rJns counter to local and regional pOliCIes.
Given the operational and safety concerns of relocating eXIstlng
transit servlce from Main street to Neilson Way, and from Hlll
St. to Ocean Park Blvd., along with the apparent Opposltlon to
the change expressed by SMMBL's current riders, the Clty should
consider retaining such services as they currently exist.
;
I
t
i
!
:
8
AttacJ.l:1.en::." 3
~ ~ * ~ ~ ~
i 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
; ~ ..... ....... ....... ....... .-. i .......
I ~ !
J c::t:
~
0 ('.J LO a:) LO co I M
~ r--. v C'-.I co -
0 v <: J U"'l <.0
Z z I
i
l i
* ~ * * I ~ I ~ I
Cl t-.. 0 U"'l a:) C) en
L..:..J ..... N ('.J ....... C"-l ......
~~ ! I
u i
I.i.J 1
u.. c::t: I
u.... Z r i
c::t: ..... 0'"> C'-I l ('.J co 0
co I 0'"> ...... ! .......
1-0 , ........
.. oz i i
c... z ;
...... l 1 i
Cl:::
~ , a-!!: ~ ~ I Q..!!: I ~ ! i ~
<.0 r- M Ln ! 1.0 t v
w ....... ..... - ......
::.::: ~ I , i
0::::: a:::
::E: L..:..J
...... <
V') Cl V') Z I
l.J..J .......J 0:::: v (""') ....... CO r 10 m
Z ::J l.J..J r- r- OO
........ V') 0 0 ,
~~ :3: Z i
~
I V') =:J ! w I I
::::J V') ~
cow :;z I- ~ * ~ I * ~ I I ~
0:: l <:t: ~ r--. M M c:o "<l'" l en
~ I ::c ~ 1.0 ,...., <.0 1.0 r-.... <.0
<c>- ! u uQ..!!: i
1
\ 0..L..:..J ........ I 1
......> u..
u a::: u.... <C !
......~ ...... z I
z V') 0 r--. M L.('l U"'l U"'l ; C)
:::> ...... (""') U"'l I 1.0 I I C"-l
::E: I- wo M M oo:r .
, l.LJ 0:: ::z: <I)
<C u..J 0 .-
WO:: :::E os
........1- .....
:z: V') 0
0 * <t!!: * I ~ ~ ~ I .....
::E: z i 0 N ..... 0 oq- N
...... I LoU M L.('l ..... M oq- M ~
<C< ! N ~ ...
~ ::E: -
:z I I VI I "0
<C 1 <C OJ
V') LoU I z "'0
---l ('\J In co U"'l co I M ='
0.. . r- v I N <XJ ....... .-
i ::E: 0 v U"'l I I l.O U
I <C z I I I ~
J V') ....
I I
.....
I I ! 0
I V'l <: N \0 U') M 0'\ N ~
I t!l u.J 1.0 co r-.. ('.J 0'\ N
>- VI Z 0:: U') ,..." .- 0'"> 0..
.....Jt!l-<( ~ ! ~ ~ ...
-ZI- ..... ....... ...... ~
, <......~ . <C I II:l
! I Cl Cl t!ll- Z ~
0:: ...... V') I OJ
t!l <C....J I I I "0
>oc::ez ,-
t ex: co ..... ~
0<5 <C
I ::E: I i M
I M
il I I
....J il OJ
< ! u.J C
....... a:> 0- M l- .. N J .....J ''-
r- ....... M 0 ~ 0.. ...J
I u.J VI I l- I VI ::E: I
Z ~ Cl
...... i Z ...J ...J .....J Cl , ~ ...J .......J V') ~
l ~ ...... CO CO CO l- I V') .......J m I 0::
I I <C :::E :E: :::E c:z: I ........ ::e: ...J U
I :::E: ::E: ::E: ::E: u :z: - ::E: <C V')
I V') V') V') V') I ....... VI l-
I <: 0
I :::E - ! -Ie
l
-~
:.:_:. :.:=.=....--.~.:-:. ~
-
I I I I .
i I -:::l
, >
1 -l
! I 0:::
-
. i ! ..:.::
e i ! j....,
~ . !
t'tl 0. ; i ! '.
; ;:l..
(l) I : MI i
0..\0 ~I ~
I -
('J
. . I <:J
x:e \Oi lo.'i ~I \D co \0 <:I' Ui n U
. . i r-l ...... M 0
0..0..
! \l...<.
M i 0
-
I ..c
I I .;...J
\.j
I ! 0
I i c:
.j...J
::J
~ I C)
I l-<
::l +.J
0 i tt1
:r: ! !
0:: i I c:
I ....
~ ! .-;:
0.. - i :E
I E-< . I
UltLl J:l '-
tLltLl . ~I '0 0
UlO:: 0.. C
;:'8 >. ::l ,...
;....
i:OtIl roM 0 0
'01 ..Q \D "'" I M M .0 \D '<::' I <:I' <:I' :--- -...-1
>rZ 'Tj . .c r-l .c r-l N +J
..cH -.-I e .j...J +J '>-l
~~ x: . 1-1 ;::j 0
I ro 0 0 0..
I tLl Zl trl I
! ~Z VI <:)
~O '-" i ..c
~
i tLl
f t::J C
I ~ 0
.
~ I >.
:> .-I
< C
0
lJ}
- .-I
. Q.I
e >
..lr::: t'tl
ttl ltl l-<
(j) +.J
0.. VI
I CO
. . ~
X:J:l \0 M ..... \D \D \D "'" ~ ..... N c::)
. . r-\ ..-l N M aJ
< t'tl C
.-I
1.0 I ~
........
H
::c
'Tj 'Tj :;.::
C c: :;.::
! ::l ;:l :n
0 0
.0 .0
~ Q ...-l,Cl/.I ~ Cl. ~.c::l/.I r-il/.l ..
~ iD E-< ttl .j...J c.. ;::::J Eo< t'tl +J 0.. 'tl 0.. aJ
Z X:r-l 0;) 0 IZM +Jlo-I.-I ::E.r-l CO 0 ~n 4J ::i...-\ .l-l-..-\ +.J
H x: ,...; Un o 0 l-l ::::: ...... UM 001-1 o 1-1 .:l
~ u:J u:J 8Z8 :n en E-<u:l8 88 Z
----